9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 51 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - AO not initiated Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT - As relying on INDIAN PHARMACEUTICALS 1978 (10) TMI 12 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT A.O failed to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) towards the income concealed by the assessee. Therefore in our considered view Ld. PCIT was right in exercising the power conferred to him u/s 263 and setting aside the assessment order u/s 143(3) treating it as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee are liable to be dismissed. - in the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). 2. Failure of the Assessing Officer (AO) to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Non-inclusion of interest income under Section 244A on Income Tax refund in the taxable income. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Order Passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT): The appellant challenged the order passed under Section 263 of the Act by the PCIT on the grounds that the reasons stated were not proper and sufficient for setting aside the assessment. The appellant argued that the order passed by the AO under Section 143(3)/147 was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. However, the Tribunal found that the PCIT had valid reasons to revise the assessment order, as the AO failed to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and did not include interest income under Section 244A in the taxable income. The Tribunal referenced the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals, which held that the Commissioner was right in exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 when the AO failed to take notice of facts attracting penalty provisions, making the assessment order erroneous. 2. Failure of the Assessing Officer (AO) to Initiate Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act: The PCIT observed that the AO did not initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) despite the assessee increasing his income significantly in the revised return filed in response to the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal upheld the PCIT’s observation, stating that the AO’s failure to initiate penalty proceedings was a sufficient reason for the PCIT to revise the assessment order under Section 263. The Tribunal cited the jurisdictional High Court’s decision, which emphasized that the term "assessment" includes the entire procedure for imposing liability, and failure to invoke penalty provisions constitutes an error prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 3. Non-inclusion of Interest Income under Section 244A on Income Tax Refund in the Taxable Income: The PCIT also noted that the assessee did not offer interest income of ?1,229 received under Section 244A on Income Tax refund for taxation. The assessee contended that the interest was not reflected in Form 26AS and was not received. However, the Tribunal found that the PCIT was justified in considering this as another reason to revise the assessment order under Section 263. The Tribunal agreed with the PCIT that the AO’s omission to include this interest income in the taxable income was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT was right in exercising the jurisdiction conferred under Section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, affirming that the AO’s failure to initiate penalty proceedings and the non-inclusion of interest income in the taxable income warranted the revision of the assessment order. The appeal was dismissed, and the order pronounced in the open Court on 26.07.2019.
|
