9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 179 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - HELD THAT - We are of the view that none of the two questions as proposed by the Revenue could be termed as the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal. The Tribunal has recorded a specific finding that during the search, nothing incriminating was recovered and the Assessing Office made adequate inquiry in the case. It is not in dispute that during the course of framing of assessment, the Assessing Officer had access to all the records of the assessee and after perusal of such records ultimately the Assessing Officer framed the assessment. The Tribunal is right in its final conclusion that such assessment order could not have been taken into revision in exercise of revisional power under Section 263 of the Act as assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
Issues:
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in reversing the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by holding that the assessment order cannot be branded as erroneous due to inadequate inquiry? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in not appreciating that interest expenditure was not wholly and exclusively for earning interest income but was utilized for investment in shares/securities? Issue 1 Analysis: The case involves a tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where the Revenue challenged an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue raised two questions of law, primarily focusing on the adequacy of inquiry in the assessment process. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) invoked revisional powers under Section 263, contending that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to conduct proper inquiries before allowing certain claims made by the assessee. The CIT observed that the AO accepted the claims without verifying their allowability as per the Income-tax Act, leading to a lack of application of mind. The CIT concluded that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interests due to inadequate inquiry by the AO. Issue 2 Analysis: Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal, in its order, highlighted that the interest expenditure claimed by the assessee was not utilized solely for earning interest income but was instead used for investments in shares/securities. The Tribunal noted that the AO accepted the assessee's submissions without verifying the nexus between the source of funds and their utilization, leading to an erroneous allowance of the interest expenditure. The Tribunal found the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Judgment Analysis: The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner. The Tribunal emphasized that during the search, no incriminating material was found, and the AO had made adequate inquiries in the case. The Tribunal referenced two decisions of the Gujarat High Court to support its conclusion that the assessment order could not be revisited under Section 263 due to the absence of incriminating material and the adequacy of inquiry by the AO. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the proposed questions by the Revenue did not raise substantial legal issues. The Court agreed that the assessment order was not erroneous and dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of inadequate inquiry in the assessment process and the utilization of interest expenditure for investments, ultimately upholding the Tribunal's decision and dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue.
|
