9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment set aside by CIT under section 263 for not examining gifts received and unexplained investment in godown. Analysis: The appeal was against the CIT's order under section 263 setting aside the assessment. The counsel for the assessee argued that the assessment was not erroneous as the Assessing Officer (AO) had examined the gifts received and the unexplained investment in the godown. The counsel relied on a decision of the Jurisdictional High Court to support this argument. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative supported the CIT's order, claiming that the AO had completed the assessment hastily without properly verifying the gifts' genuineness and the unexplained investment. Upon reviewing the material, it was found that the AO had completed the assessment on 22nd March, 1996. The AO mentioned in the assessment order that during a survey, a partner of a firm surrendered Rs. 65,000 as unexplained investment in the godown. The AO accepted the assessee's claim based on the valuation report and other evidence provided. The gifts received by the assessee were also examined, with the gift deed and the donors' income sources being verified. The AO accepted the gifts after being satisfied with the evidence presented. The Tribunal noted that the AO had examined all relevant aspects and accepted the assessee's contentions based on the evidence provided, similar to a precedent involving Ratlam Coal Ash Company cited by the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, citing the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court and the findings in the Ratlam Coal Ash Company case. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT's order under section 263 was quashed, and the assessment order from 22nd March, 1996, was reinstated. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed.
|
