2020 (1) TMI 1150 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - AO did not verify the reasons for sales of land at low rates , AO did not bring to tax unaccounted cashfound during survey AND AO also failed to verify the applicability of section 45(2) - Tribunal took the view that the CIT was not justified in invoking jurisdiction under section 263 - HELD THAT - Assessee had disclosed in his return of income the aforesaid amount of ₹ 6.85 lakhs. At the end of the assessment, the said amount was taxed by the Assessing Officer under the head of income from other sources . Therefore, it was held by the Tribunal that the Commissioner of the Income Tax was not justified in treating the said amount as part of undisclosed income and assuming jurisdiction under section 263 when it was disclosed and assessed. As regards applicability of section 45 (2), Tribunal noticed that Commissioner of Income Tax had accepted applicability of the said provision and therefore, it was held that there is no error in the order of the Assessing Officer. Tribunal further held that inquiry was made by the Assessing Officer into disclosures made during the course of the assessment proceedings by the assessee. When the issue was enquired into by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner ought not to have invoked jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error or infirmity to warrant interference. No question of law, muchless any substantial question of law, arises from the said order.

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
2. Validity of assessment order and jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax
3. Treatment of undisclosed income and applicability of section 45(2)

Issue 1: Jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The High Court considered the appeal by the Revenue challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had held that the Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified in invoking his revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal restored the initial assessment order of the Assessing Officer. The main point of contention was whether the Commissioner of Income Tax had the authority to invoke section 263 in this case.

Issue 2: Validity of assessment order and jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax:
The Commissioner of Income Tax invoked jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act due to discrepancies noted in the assessment record and order. The discrepancies included the failure to verify reasons for sales of land at low rates, non-disclosure of unaccounted cash, and failure to verify the applicability of section 45(2). The Commissioner set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order. However, the Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 was not justified as it did not result in any revenue loss. The Tribunal also found that the undisclosed income of ?6.85 lakhs was already disclosed by the assessee and assessed under the head of "income from other sources."

Issue 3: Treatment of undisclosed income and applicability of section 45(2):
Regarding the undisclosed income of ?6.85 lakhs, the Tribunal found that the amount was disclosed in the return of income and assessed by the Assessing Officer under the correct head. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified in treating it as undisclosed income and assuming jurisdiction under section 263. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had accepted the applicability of section 45(2), indicating no error in the Assessing Officer's order.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the Tribunal's order did not have any error or infirmity warranting interference. It was held that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arose from the Tribunal's order. The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

← Previous Next →