9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1201 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - assessment competed u/s 143(3) - interest payment simply allowed by AO without making enquiry - chit loss claim accepted by AO without making any enquiry - HELD THAT - Pr.CIT has specifically pointed out in his order that assessee has invested in the firm of ₹ 18,85,000/- as against the bid amount of ₹ 36.00 lakhs, ignoring this fact the AO has allowed the entire chit loss claimed under the head income from other sources , instead of allowing the proportionate chit loss on the bid amount against income from M/s. Shine Steels received by way of interest & remuneration. Therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is prima-facie erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue as pointed out by the Pr.CIT. We find that the Assessing Officer simply accepted the explanation of the assessee and assessment is completed. Therefore, the Pr.CIT has examined all the facts and gave a finding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. We fully agree with the order passed by the Pr.CIT. No reason to interfere with the order passed by the Pr.CIT. Thus, this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Revision of assessment order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Allowability of interest payment of ?6,59,971. 3. Claim of chit loss of ?6,65,217. Analysis: Issue 1: Revision of assessment order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The appeal was against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee's revised grounds of appeal challenged the jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner to invoke section 263, arguing that the assessment order under section 143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue's interests. However, the Principal Commissioner found discrepancies in the assessment related to interest payment and chit loss claims. The assessee's submissions were considered, but the Principal Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment after providing a hearing opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the Principal Commissioner's decision, stating that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interests due to lack of proper verifications and inquiries. Issue 2: Allowability of interest payment of ?6,59,971 The Assessing Officer allowed the interest claim without adequate verification, leading to the Principal Commissioner's intervention under section 263. The assessee argued that the interest claimed was justified as allowable expenditure, but the Principal Commissioner found lack of details regarding the utilization of the overdrawn amounts. The Tribunal agreed with the Principal Commissioner's assessment that the interest claim was not adequately verified, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Issue 3: Claim of chit loss of ?6,65,217 The Assessing Officer accepted the chit loss claim without proper inquiry, leading to the Principal Commissioner's intervention. The assessee contended that the chit loss was fully allowable against taxable income, citing investments in partnership firms. However, the Principal Commissioner found discrepancies in the explanation provided by the assessee and lack of verification by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal concurred with the Principal Commissioner's findings, stating that the Assessing Officer's failure to verify the chit loss claim rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, upholding the Principal Commissioner's decision to revise the assessment order under section 263 due to errors and lack of proper verifications in the assessment related to interest payment and chit loss claims.
|
