2022 (6) TMI 741 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - assessee had claimed deduction under section 80P on interest earned from nationalized bank / Gujarat State Finance Corporation and not from deposits kept with co-operative society/cooperative bank - HELD THAT - As on analysis of the original assessment order and perusal of the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT, we note that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO did not make any enquiry/did not apply his mind on the applicability of section 80P of the Act on interest earned on deposits kept with GSFC/nationalized banks. In fact, the learned counsel for the assessee has not been able to point out any specific instances where the AO in the original assessment order had carried out detailed enquiries/applied his mind with respect to the various issues pointed out by the Ld. Pr. CIT while passing the 263 order. From the facts on record, we find that there is an evident lack of enquiry by the assessing officer while passing the original assessment order. It was on this basis that Ld. Pr. CIT passed the 263 order after giving due opportunity to the assessee and after taking into consideration the replies filed by the assessee and held that the original assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly, in view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Act. - Decided against assessee.

Issues:
1. Time bar for appeal filing.
2. Merits of the case regarding deductions under section 80P of the Income Tax Act.
3. Validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 263 of the Act.
4. Examination of the original assessment order by the assessing officer.

Issue 1: Time bar for appeal filing

The appeal filed by the assessee was time-barred by 243 days. The counsel for the assessee argued that due to incorrect advice from the chartered accountant, the appeal was not filed on time. The assessee demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay, citing a case to support their argument. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal based on the presented circumstances.

Issue 2: Merits of the case regarding deductions under section 80P of the Income Tax Act

The Principal Commissioner observed that the assessing officer had not properly investigated various issues. These included the deduction claimed under section 80P on interest earned from nationalized banks, rental income exemption claimed under section 80P(2)(c), short-term capital gains not offered for taxation, and set-off of business losses. The Principal Commissioner held that the AO had wrongly allowed these deductions without proper examination. The Tribunal found that the AO did not conduct sufficient inquiries during the original assessment, leading to the erroneous allowances. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Principal Commissioner's decision that the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests.

Issue 3: Validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 263 of the Act

The counsel for the assessee challenged the initiation of proceedings under section 263, arguing that it was solely based on a revenue audit objection. However, the Tribunal noted that the Principal Commissioner had applied his mind to the facts of the case, analyzed the original assessment order, and provided the assessee with a hearing opportunity before passing the order under section 263. The Tribunal cited a previous case to support the view that the Commissioner can act on audit objections if he applies his own judgment. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Principal Commissioner's decision to initiate proceedings under section 263.

Issue 4: Examination of the original assessment order by the assessing officer

The assessing officer had not properly investigated various issues related to deductions claimed under section 80P. The Tribunal observed a lack of inquiry by the assessing officer in the original assessment order. The Tribunal upheld the Principal Commissioner's decision that the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests due to the inadequate examination by the assessing officer. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

---

← Previous Next →