9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 586 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - deduction claimed u/s 54EC - denial of natural justice - no documentary evidence was placed on record by the assessee to establish the genuineness of the fact of claiming deduction u/s 54EC - HELD THAT - All documents, notices and replies coupled with documents goes to show that the A.O. during the course of assessment had raised queries/enquiries and sought information from the assessee on the issues and the assessee had also replied to the said queries and filed supportive documents. After selecting the case of the assessee for limited scrutiny, the A.O. issued detailed query letter to the assessee and asked to produce the details and evidences for verification and in response thereof, the assessee had furnished all the details vide reply to the AO - on perusal of the assessment order, the A.O. himself has clearly admitted in the said order that the assessee through his representative had submitted electronic response through e-filling portal/ITBA and necessary details on various queries were also submitted by the ld. AR and after examining the said details, the A.O. had categorically mentioned that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had submitted reasonable details and documents related to the limited scrutiny issue which were examined by the A.O. and after considering the submission and supporting details filed by the assessee on the limited issue, the A.O. had accepted the returned income. Although, it is an admitted case by the ld. Pr.CIT that he had called for the record and gone through and examined the assessment records of the preset case which was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS but he was of the view that the AO has not made proper detailed i.e deep inquiry on the issue. The ld. Pr.CIT has not looked into details called for by the A.O. and the replies submitted by the assessee to the A.O. during the assessment proceedings. However, the ld. Pr.CIT has only stated that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hence the conclusion of the ld. Pr. CIT that the order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is not a matter of subjective satisfaction of the ld. Pr. CIT. He, therefore, ought to have found out this on the basis of objective material after assessing the contention raised by the assessee. He, however, failed to do so and reached a conclusion that the order was prejudicial with a view that the present AO shall undertake that exercise after the assessment has been set aside for his consideration. Thus, according to us, such a view or action is not well founded in the law as has already been held by the various Hon ble High courts. It is mandatory to apply the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact as to whether there is any statutory provision or not. As per facts of the present case, the assessee was not afforded opportunity much less sufficient opportunity to give the reply to the show cause notice. Therefore it is clear that the ld. Pr. CIT in a hurriedly manner without affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee, had passed impugned order by violating principles of audi alteram partem. Thus, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Coordinate Bench of Cuttak ITAT in the case of Jaidurga Minerals 2020 (8) TMI 272 - ITAT CUTTACK and in the case of Jagnnath Prasad Bhargva 1942 (7) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and in view of the above factual position, the ld. Pr.CIT has committed a gross error in not providing effective/reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the order. Accordingly, the revisional proceedings framed u/s 263 stands quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Adequacy of the inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer (A.O.). 3. Breach of natural justice. 4. Specific issues related to deductions and investments claimed by the assessee. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee challenged the order passed under Section 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT), arguing that it was invalid and without jurisdiction. The Pr.CIT can invoke Section 263 only if the order passed by the A.O. is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Tribunal noted that the Pr.CIT did not provide adequate evidence or material to support the claim that the A.O.'s order was prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that the Pr.CIT must have objective material to justify the exercise of revisionary power under Section 263. 2. Adequacy of the inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer (A.O.): The Tribunal examined whether the A.O. conducted sufficient inquiry during the assessment proceedings. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on specific issues, and the A.O. issued detailed queries to the assessee, who provided responses and supporting documents. The Tribunal found that the A.O. made reasonable inquiries and that the Pr.CIT's assertion that the A.O. did not conduct a proper and detailed inquiry was not substantiated. The Tribunal highlighted that the A.O. had taken a possible view based on the evidence presented. 3. Breach of natural justice: The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether the Pr.CIT provided the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Pr.CIT issued a notice on 18/03/2021 for a hearing on 24/03/2021, and the assessee requested an adjournment. However, the Pr.CIT proceeded to pass the order on 31/03/2021 without considering the adjournment request. The Tribunal held that this action violated the principles of natural justice, as the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to present their case. 4. Specific issues related to deductions and investments claimed by the assessee: - Deduction under Section 54EC: The Pr.CIT claimed that no documentary evidence was provided to support the deduction of ?50,00,000/- under Section 54EC for investment in National Highway Authority of India bonds. However, the assessee had submitted relevant documents, including a demat account statement. - Expenditure on repairs and improvements: The Pr.CIT argued that no evidence was provided for the expenditure of ?7,24,429/- claimed for repairs and improvements. The assessee had submitted year-wise details and supporting documents for these expenses. - Brokerage charges: The Pr.CIT contended that no evidence was provided for brokerage charges of ?6,21,000/-. The assessee had submitted PAN cards and bank statements showing payments to brokers. - Investment in Destiomoney Securities: The Pr.CIT claimed that the investment of ?71,10,000/- in Destiomoney Securities was not verifiable. The assessee provided bank statements and ledger accounts to support the transactions. - Share derivative transactions and audit requirement: The Pr.CIT argued that the assessee's share derivative transactions exceeded the threshold limit, requiring an audit under Section 44AB, and that the A.O. did not initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271B. The Tribunal noted that the turnover for derivatives was ?42,75,579/-, below the audit threshold, and thus, no audit was required. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the Pr.CIT under Section 263, holding that the A.O. had conducted adequate inquiries and that the Pr.CIT violated the principles of natural justice by not providing a fair hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the Pr.CIT's conclusions were not supported by objective material and that the A.O.'s order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
|
