9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 323 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - inadequate or no inquiry by AO - genuineness of sale purchase of the shares - Held that - No justification for the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax to initiate proceedings under section 263 as there was no error in the assessment order as held in the case of Gopal Castings (P.) Ltd. and in the case of Narain Singla 2016 (2) TMI 1105 - ITAT CHANDIGARH In the present case also, as demonstrated above by the learned counsel for the assessee, enquiry relating to the purchase price of the shares were made during the assessment proceedings and due reply filed by the assessee. A perusal of the reply filed by the assessee, as reproduced above, shows that he had also explained why the price of ₹ 6,554, based on the documents seized from the premises of Shri Surinder Kumar Gulati, be not substituted. Therefore, it is clear from the above that the issue had been duly enquired into during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had applied his mind on the issue and thereafter formed an opinion making no addition of the same. Further we find that the issue relating to the price of the shares of Pragati Nirman had been settled by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Ashish Singla (2016 (2) TMI 1105 - ITAT CHANDIGARH) wherein addition made on account of the alleged higher price fetched was deleted. Therefore the view formed by the Assessing Officer was in consonance with that of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. There was therefore, we hold, no justification for the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax to initiate proceedings under section 263 as there was no error in the assessment order. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the jurisdiction assumed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. 2. Validity of the assessment order concerning the purchase price of shares of M/s. Pragati Nirman Pvt. Ltd. 3. Consideration of evidence and inquiries conducted during the assessment proceedings. 4. Relevance of previous tribunal decisions on similar matters. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legitimacy of the jurisdiction assumed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act: The primary issue was whether the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) had the authority to revise the assessment order under section 263. The tribunal held that the jurisdiction assumed under section 263 by the PCIT was illegal. The PCIT relied heavily on previous reasoning in the case of Gopal Castings (P.) Ltd., which had been set aside by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT found that all seized materials were already considered by the Assessing Officer (AO), and no new evidence warranted the revision. The tribunal emphasized that the PCIT could not invoke section 263 merely because he disagreed with the AO’s conclusions if the AO had conducted proper inquiries and formed a reasonable opinion. 2. Validity of the assessment order concerning the purchase price of shares of M/s. Pragati Nirman Pvt. Ltd.: The PCIT argued that the AO's failure to consider the higher purchase price of shares, as indicated by documents found during a search, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. However, the tribunal noted that the AO had indeed inquired into the purchase price during the assessment proceedings. The assessee had provided detailed responses, explaining the purchase price and why the higher price indicated in the documents should not apply. The tribunal found that the AO had applied his mind and formed a reasonable opinion, making the assessment order valid. 3. Consideration of evidence and inquiries conducted during the assessment proceedings: The tribunal reviewed the inquiries made by the AO and the evidence provided by the assessee. The AO had asked for and received detailed information about the shares purchased, including the payment method and source of funds. The assessee had also addressed why the higher price found in documents from a third party should not apply. The tribunal concluded that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and that the PCIT could not assume jurisdiction under section 263 based on a difference of opinion or perceived inadequacy of the AO’s inquiries. 4. Relevance of previous tribunal decisions on similar matters: The tribunal highlighted that previous decisions in similar cases, such as those involving Gopal Castings (P.) Ltd. and Ashish Singla, had set a precedent that the PCIT could not ignore. In these cases, the ITAT had found no justification for adding unaccounted investments based on the same set of documents. The tribunal reiterated that the AO’s view, which aligned with these previous tribunal decisions, was not erroneous. Therefore, the PCIT's attempt to revise the assessment order under section 263 was unfounded. Conclusion: The tribunal set aside the impugned order under section 263, concluding that the proceedings were beyond the competence of the PCIT and were unjustified and unreasonable. The appeals of the assessees were allowed, affirming that the AO’s original assessment orders were valid and that the PCIT had no basis to invoke revisionary proceedings under section 263.
|
