9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 1334 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - addition u/s 68 of share capital received along with share premium - HELD THAT - we follow the order of the ITAT in the assessee s own case for the Assessment Year 2013-14 2021 (3) TMI 217 - ITAT KOLKATA , wherein, the ITAT had held his is not a case of non-applicability of mind or non-verification. The Assessing Officer has taken a possible view. When the Assessing Officer follows the direction of the ld. Pr. CIT, in his order passed u/s 263 of the Act, no revision can be done u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not travelled beyond these directions. We hold that the exercise of the revisionary powers by the ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 is bad in law. Hence, we quash the same. Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the exercise of revisionary powers by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Adequacy of the enquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the addition under Section 68 of the Act for share capital received along with share premium. 3. Comparison of facts and circumstances with the previous assessment year (2013-14). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Exercise of Revisionary Powers by the Pr. CIT under Section 263: The Pr. CIT exercised revisionary powers under Section 263, setting aside the AO's order and directing a de novo assessment on the issue of addition under Section 68 for share capital received along with share premium. The Pr. CIT stated that the AO had not examined the details judiciously and that there were insufficient enquiries made. However, the tribunal found that this finding was factually incorrect. It was not a case of no enquiry or lack of application of mind by the AO. The tribunal noted that an assessment order under Section 143(3) cannot be revised merely because the Pr. CIT believes the enquiries were inadequate. The tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's observations indicated a disagreement with the AO's conclusions rather than a legitimate ground for revision. 2. Adequacy of the Enquiries Conducted by the AO: The tribunal found that the AO had conducted detailed enquiries as per the directions of the Pr. CIT. Summons were issued under Section 131 to the directors of the shareholding company, and the AO recorded statements on oath, examined various documents, and deputed a departmental inspector for inspection. The AO's detailed findings were documented, demonstrating that the AO had applied his mind and conducted a thorough investigation. The tribunal emphasized that the AO's acceptance of the assessee's claim after such detailed enquiries was a plausible view and could not be termed as unsustainable in law. 3. Comparison with the Previous Assessment Year (2013-14): The tribunal noted that the facts and circumstances of the case for the assessment year 2012-13 were identical to those of the assessment year 2013-14. The arguments advanced and the basis of the assessment order and the order under Section 263 were the same for both years. The tribunal followed its own decision in the assessee's case for the assessment year 2013-14, where it had quashed the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263, holding that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries and that the revisionary powers were exercised without proper justification. Conclusion: The tribunal held that the exercise of revisionary powers by the Pr. CIT under Section 263 was invalid and quashed the order dated 31/01/2020. The tribunal concluded that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries and that the Pr. CIT's intervention was not justified. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
|
