9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 949 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - During the survey operations, deficit cash balance was found in the hands of the assessee - HELD THAT - AO has carefully considered the additional income offered by the assessee during the survey proceedings and concluded that the assessee has paid the tax including the undisclosed income detected during the survey. Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act requires the AO to cause enquiries and verification before passing the assessment order. We find from the order of the AO that the show cause notice was issued to the assessee to disclose the undisclosed income and pay tax accordingly. The assessee has rightly discharged his duty of disclosing the undisclosed income as intimated to the assessee by the AO and paid taxes accordingly, which was also recorded in the order of the AO. We, therefore, find that the order of the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We hereby set aside the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed u/s.263 of the Act and restore the order of Ld. AO - Appeal of assessee allowed.
Issues:
- Validity of the order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act - Authority of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to initiate action under section 263 - Requirement of examining records before concluding on adverse findings - Consideration of issues already examined in assessment proceedings - Conditions for initiating proceedings under section 263 - Determination of whether the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue Analysis: 1. Validity of Section 263 Order: The appeal was filed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The appellant contested the validity of the order, claiming it was contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. 2. Authority of Pr. CIT to Initiate Action: The appellant argued that the Pr. CIT based the action on the recommendations of the same Assessing Officer who passed the original order, questioning the validity of the order under section 263. 3. Examination of Records: The appellant contended that the Pr. CIT did not examine the records independently before reaching adverse conclusions, relying on the Assessing Officer's recommendations. This raised concerns about the procedural compliance under section 263. 4. Issues Already Examined: The appellant highlighted that the issue related to income admitted during survey proceedings had been examined by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings under section 147, suggesting that it should not be subject to review under section 263. 5. Conditions for Initiating Proceedings: The appellant emphasized that for section 263 proceedings to be initiated, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. They argued that since the issue had been addressed in the assessment proceedings, the order was not prejudicial to revenue. 6. Assessment of AO's Order: The Assessing Officer's order was scrutinized, where it was noted that the additional income offered by the assessee during survey proceedings was duly considered, and the taxes were paid accordingly. The order was found to be in compliance with the requirements of Explanation 2 to section 263. 7. Legal Precedents: The Tribunal referred to legal precedents, such as the case of PCIT vs Deccan Jewellers P Ltd., to support the conclusion that the Assessing Officer's decision was not erroneous. Additionally, the case of CIT vs Vikas Polymers was cited to emphasize that a query resolved during scrutiny does not automatically render the order erroneous. 8. Decision and Conclusion: After considering the arguments and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. Consequently, the order passed under section 263 by the Pr. CIT was set aside, and the order of the Assessing Officer was restored. In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the Tribunal pronounced the order on 28th July 2022.
|
