9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 996 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - addition pertaining to expenditure incurred by the assessee - Held that - AO while passing the order u/s 143(3) has passed the order without calling for the relevant material, without conducting any enquiry simply accepted the income returned by the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 to 2010-11 and the Ld.Commssioner directed the AO to examine the relevant material and conduct enquiry and passed order in denovo in accordance with law - CIT directed the AO to examine the issue and passed orders accordingly. The AO has examined the issue passed the orders denovo in accordance with law. We find infirmity in the order passed by the AO confirmed by the CIT(A) and accordingly this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Estimation of income at 12.5% made by the Ld.CIT(A) - Held that - AO has estimated the income at ₹ 27,00,437/- i.e. at 12.5% on ₹ 2,16,03,500/-. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) has only considered the amounts towards the site purchase payments of ₹ 18,87,500/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and estimated at ₹ 2,35,938/- at 12.5% on ₹ 18,87,500/-. We find infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Jurisdictional error by Assessing Officer in passing order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Maintainability of appeal by Revenue based on tax effect. 3. Estimation of income by CIT(A) for assessment year 2010-11. Jurisdictional Error Issue: In the case, the main issue revolved around the jurisdictional error by the Assessing Officer (AO) in passing an order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) had directed the AO to obtain relevant details and examine the issue in accordance with the law. The AO, without conducting any inquiry or obtaining relevant material, simply accepted the income returned by the assessee for multiple assessment years. The CIT directed the AO to examine the issue and pass orders denovo in accordance with the law. The Tribunal found infirmity in the order passed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A), leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the assessee. Maintainability of Appeal Issue: Another issue arose regarding the maintainability of the appeal by the Revenue based on the tax effect involved. The Circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) stated that appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold are not maintainable. As the tax effect involved in this specific appeal was below the threshold, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Estimation of Income Issue: The third issue focused on the estimation of income by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee, a builder, had received payments from prospective buyers and made payments to site owners. The AO estimated the income of the assessee at 12% of the total amount received. However, on appeal, the CIT(A) considered only the amount for the assessment year 2010-11 and estimated the income at 12.5% of that specific amount. The Tribunal reviewed the orders of the authorities below and found discrepancies in the CIT(A)'s decision, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the assessee. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all appeals related to the jurisdictional error by the AO, the maintainability of the appeal by the Revenue, and the estimation of income for the assessment year 2010-11. The detailed analysis of each issue provided a comprehensive understanding of the legal judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM.
|
