9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the order under section 263 of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Assessment of income from money lending business and proprietary business. 3. Interpretation of findings by the CIT and the ITO. 4. Opportunity for the assessee to rebut the findings. 5. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Analysis: The judgment pertains to two appeals challenging a consolidated order issued to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under section 263 of the IT Act, 1961. The first issue revolves around the validity of the order under section 263. The CIT had cancelled the assessment for two years due to non-inclusion of income from a business, which was considered prejudicial to revenue. The assessee contended that the order of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) was not erroneous, especially since the assessment of the other business was still pending before appellate authorities. The second issue concerns the assessment of income from a money lending business and a proprietary business. The ITO had held that the business belonged to the assessee Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), but the CIT found the assessment to be prejudicial to revenue. The third issue involves the interpretation of findings by the CIT and the ITO. The CIT relied on the findings of the ITO without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to rebut them. The fourth issue addresses the opportunity for the assessee to rebut the findings. The tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions, stating that the CIT should have allowed the assessee to disprove the ITO's findings before invoking section 263. The tribunal set aside the CIT's order and directed a reevaluation after considering the decision of the appellate authorities in a related case. Lastly, the fifth issue pertains to the condonation of a 9-day delay in filing the appeal, which was subsequently allowed for statistical purposes. The tribunal considered the application and explanations provided by the counsel of the assessee before condoning the delay.
|
