9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 329 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Unexplained investment - revisionary jurisdiction exercised for the second time - order u/s. 263 passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT second time by upholding the order passed in the first round by the AO in terms of the direction of the Ld. Pr. CIT - HELD THAT - CIT has revised the assessment on the ground lack of enquiry on the part of the AO into the issue of investment of share capital and share premium. However, we note that in the set aside assessment proceeding in the first inning the AO examined the issue in detail after calling information from the assessee as well as investors u/s 133(6) of the Act and based on that detailed enquiry on the issue accepted the investments made in the assessee company. Findings of the AO that while giving effect to the directions of the Ld. Pr. CIT, AO issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act to the assessee which was duly complied with by filing necessary documents and informations. We note that the AO also issued notices u/s. 133(6) on 12.07.2016 to the parties from whom the funds were raised by the assessee and verified the source of investments, identity and genuineness. The said investor companies duly responded to the said notice and thereafter the AO recorded his satisfaction accepting the said investments in the hands of the assessee. Considering the above facts, we are of the view that the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act by Ld. Pr. CIT has not been validly exercised. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of the coordinate bench in Omkar Infracon (P) Ltd. 2020 (5) TMI 209 - ITAT KOLKATA wherein under similar facts, wherein the show cause notice is verbatim same, the coordinate bench has held the second revision as invalid by upholding the assessment order passed in the first inning. Thus we are therefore, inclined to quash the order u/s. 263 of the Act passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT second time by upholding the order passed in the first round by the AO in terms of the direction of the Ld. Pr. CIT. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to jurisdiction exercised by Ld. Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the order of Ld. Pr. CIT for AY 2012-13, challenging the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The case involved scrutiny of the return of income, assessment orders, and revision by the Ld. Pr. CIT. The Ld. Pr. CIT set aside the assessment order for a de novo assessment due to lack of detailed investigation into the investment by shareholders and share premium. The assessee argued that the AO had conducted a thorough examination, including issuing notices u/s. 133(6) and summon u/s. 131, verifying identity and creditworthiness of investors. The Ld. Pr. CIT revised the assessment order again, citing lack of enquiry by the AO, leading to a show cause notice. The Ld. AR contended that the revisionary jurisdiction was misapplied, citing precedents and emphasizing the detailed findings in the initial assessment order. The Ld. DR supported the Ld. Pr. CIT's order, stating no prejudice to the assessee due to the revision. The Tribunal analyzed the records, appellate order, and cited decisions. It noted that the AO had conducted a detailed examination in the first assessment, issuing necessary notices and verifying transactions. The AO's findings indicated proper verification of investments and compliance with directions. The Tribunal found the Ld. Pr. CIT's exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 invalid, aligning with previous decisions and the High Court's ruling. The Tribunal quashed the Ld. Pr. CIT's second revision, upholding the initial assessment order based on the AO's thorough enquiry and compliance with directions. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the similarity of facts with previous cases and the correctness of the AO's actions in the initial assessment. The Tribunal's decision was based on the proper verification conducted by the AO and the lack of valid grounds for the Ld. Pr. CIT's revision under section 263. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the Ld. Pr. CIT's order was quashed, maintaining the validity of the initial assessment order.
|
