9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 46 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - AO s order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue - undisclosed capital introduced - Held that - We noted that in this case, the assessee vide its letter dated 28.01.2014 has given complete details of the capital introduced during the impugned assessment year. Not only this, it is apparent from page 17 of the paper-book wherein the assessee has given details of ₹ 76 lacs towards capital introduced. Out of ₹ 76 lacs, ₹ 20 lacs was given to the firm M/s. Dev Steel vide cheque dated 30.03.2007. The assessee has also filed copy of balance sheet of M/s. Dev Steel in which the assessee capital accounts and current account is duly reflected. Capital account shows ₹ 20 lacs, copy of which is placed at pages 22 and 23 of the paper-book. Thus, we find that the assessee has filed all these before the Assessing Officer. IT is apparent that it is not a case where the Assessing Officer has not made due inquiry in respect of capital introduced by the assessee in the firm. Rather the Assessing Officer has made inquiry and in reply thereto the assessee has submitted copies of the details A perusal of the order passed by the CIT indicated that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was cancelled on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not made proper enquiry and verification in respect of the issues. This, in our considered opinion, cannot be sufficient ground for cancelling the assessment. While making the assessment order, it is the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer who made the enquiry and it should be touchstone of assessment order passed by him. No cogent material or evidence was brought to our knowledge by the Ld. DR which may prove that view taken by the Assessing Officer in the case of the assessee was unsustainable in law. Therefore, we are of the view that the order passed by the CIT is illegal and without jurisdiction. If the order passed by the CIT is sustained then this will permit the illegality to continue and the subsequent action is carried out on the illegal order is also illegal per se. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Revision Order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's inquiries and application of mind. 3. Legitimacy of the Principal CIT's direction for fresh assessment. 4. Examination of unexplained cash credit in the assessee's capital introduction. 5. Retrospective application of Explanation 2 to Section 263. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Revision Order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee challenged the Principal CIT's revision order under Section 263, arguing that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made adequate inquiries and applied his mind appropriately. The Tribunal noted that Section 263 empowers the CIT to revise any order if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. However, both conditions must be satisfied. The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed made inquiries and obtained necessary details from the assessee, including the capital introduction of ?20,00,000/- in the firm M/s. Dev Steels. The Tribunal cited the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108), where it was held that merely because the AO did not write an elaborate order does not mean it was erroneous. 2. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's inquiries and application of mind: The Tribunal observed that the AO had conducted inquiries and received detailed responses from the assessee regarding the capital introduction. The assessee had provided comprehensive details, including the balance sheet and capital account of M/s. Dev Steels. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's order cannot be deemed erroneous simply because the Principal CIT believed the inquiries were inadequate. The Tribunal referred to the case of CIT vs. Mahender Kumar Bansal (297 ITR 0099), which held that the length of the AO's order does not determine its correctness. 3. Legitimacy of the Principal CIT's direction for fresh assessment: The Principal CIT directed the AO to make a fresh assessment, arguing that the initial assessment lacked proper inquiry. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the AO had indeed made inquiries and obtained necessary information from the assessee. The Tribunal cited the case of CIT vs. R.K. Construction Co. (313 ITR 65), where it was held that the CIT cannot invoke Section 263 merely because they have a different view. The Tribunal concluded that the Principal CIT's direction for a fresh assessment was not justified. 4. Examination of unexplained cash credit in the assessee's capital introduction: The Principal CIT contended that the AO failed to investigate the source of the ?20,00,000/- capital introduced by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided detailed explanations and documentary evidence regarding the capital introduction. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO had made inquiries and obtained satisfactory responses from the assessee. The Tribunal referred to the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited (295 ITR 282), which held that not every loss of revenue due to an AO's order can be deemed prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 5. Retrospective application of Explanation 2 to Section 263: The Principal CIT applied Explanation 2 to Section 263 retrospectively, arguing that it clarified the existing law. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that retrospective application was not justified in this case. The Tribunal cited the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167), where it was held that inadequate inquiry does not give the CIT jurisdiction under Section 263. The Tribunal concluded that the Principal CIT's application of Explanation 2 to Section 263 was incorrect. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the orders passed under Section 263 for both assessment years, holding that the Principal CIT was not correct in law in exercising jurisdiction under Section 263. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO had made adequate inquiries, and the Principal CIT's direction for a fresh assessment was not justified. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in the open court on 27th November 2017.
|
