9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 669 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Assessment u/s 153A - addition of unaccounted receipts found in 15 red colored notebooks - Reference of relevant seized documents - HELD THAT - AO has made total addition of unaccounted receipts found in 15 red colored notebooks was already made in A.Y. 2011-12. The initiation of 263 proceedings based on the invalidation of manual return filed by the assessee u/s. 153C is not proper, considering the fact that same income cannot be added in two Assessment Years. Therefore, we are in agreement with the submissions of the Ld. AR. Accordingly, we are inclined to set-aside the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, hence, grounds raised by the assessee in this regard is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) was justified in invoking section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 3. The treatment of unaccounted receipts and the applicability of the project completion method. 4. The impact of invalidated returns due to non-payment of self-assessment tax. 5. Double taxation concerns. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Assessment Order: The assessee filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act on 30.09.2012, declaring deemed total income under section 115JB as ?82,43,377/-. A search and seizure action under section 132 was carried out on 18.02.2014 in the case of Raj K Shah & Group. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153C, determining total income at ?2,89,66,121/-. The AO invalidated the manual return filed by the assessee due to non-payment of self-assessment tax and proceeded with the original return. 2. Justification of Section 263 Invocation by Pr. CIT: The Pr. CIT initiated proceedings under section 263, observing that the AO, having invalidated the manual return, should have considered the details of the manual return while completing the assessment. The Pr. CIT held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, directing the AO to pass a fresh assessment order. The assessee contended that the AO had already taxed the entire receipts in AY 2011-12 and that any further addition would result in double taxation. 3. Treatment of Unaccounted Receipts and Project Completion Method: The AO observed that the unaccounted receipts, as noted in the 15 red-colored notebooks, pertained to FY 2010-11 and taxed the entire receipts in AY 2011-12. The AO rejected the project completion method for unaccounted receipts, asserting that these receipts would not have been accounted for under this method if not for the search and seizure action. The AO added the entire unaccounted receipts amounting to ?46,94,71,274/- to the total income of the assessee for AY 2011-12. 4. Impact of Invalidated Returns: The AO invalidated the returns for AY 2012-13 and 2014-15 due to non-payment of self-assessment tax. Despite this, the AO acknowledged the income offered by the assessee in the manual returns but proceeded to complete the assessment based on the original returns. The Pr. CIT's invocation of section 263 was based on the invalidation of these returns and the non-consideration of the additional income disclosed. 5. Double Taxation Concerns: The assessee argued that taxing the additional income disclosed in the returns filed under section 153C for AY 2012-13 and 2014-15 would result in double taxation, as the entire unaccounted receipts were already taxed in AY 2011-12. The tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention, noting that the same income cannot be added in two assessment years. Conclusion: The tribunal found that the AO had made the total addition of unaccounted receipts in AY 2011-12 and that the initiation of section 263 proceedings by the Pr. CIT was not proper. The tribunal set aside the order passed under section 263, allowing the appeals filed by the assessee for both AY 2012-13 and 2014-15.
|
