9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1108 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - distinction between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry' - revision initiated on the basis of audit objection and lack of enquiry on the part of the AO - HELD THAT - We have to understand that lack of enquiry/no enquiry is different from inadequate enquiry and it is only in case of no enquiry by the AO, Pr. CIT/CIT can exercise jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and not in case where the AO has made enquiries as seems appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instance case, inquiry on relevant issue has been made by AO, hence no action invited u/s 263. Our view gets support from the Judgement given by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd 2009 (9) TMI 633 - DELHI HIGH COURT We hold that the impugned order passed on the issue of audit objection and on No/Lack of enquiry by the PCIT is perverse to facts on record in holding assessment order erroneous and prejudice to the interest of revenue. Appeal of assessee allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Erroneous and prejudicial assessment order. 2. Unexplained cash credit. 3. Onus under Section 68. 4. Taxation under Section 115BBE. 5. Validity of proceedings under Section 263. 6. Audit objection basis for Section 263 proceedings. 7. Limited scrutiny under CASS. Summary: Issue 1: Erroneous and Prejudicial Assessment Order The assessee contested that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Pr. CIT invoked provisions of clause (a) Explanation 2 sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Act, which was deemed illegal and bad in law by the assessee. Issue 2: Unexplained Cash Credit The Pr. CIT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had no material on record to accept the explanation that Rs. 20,00,000/- was not unexplained cash credit. The explanation given by the assessee regarding the source of cash was not substantiated in any manner and was accepted by the AO without the necessary enquiries or verifications. Issue 3: Onus under Section 68 The Pr. CIT concluded that the onus cast upon the assessee under Section 68 of the Act had not been discharged. The AO had no material on record to accept the explanation provided by the assessee, thus the primary onus under Section 68 was not fulfilled. Issue 4: Taxation under Section 115BBE The Pr. CIT held that the income declared by the assessee should have been taxed under Section 115BBE of the Act. The AO erroneously taxed the income at a lower rate, causing prejudice to revenue. Issue 5: Validity of Proceedings under Section 263 The proceedings under Section 263 were initiated on the basis of an audit objection. The assessee argued that it is settled law that such proceedings cannot be initiated on this basis. The Tribunal supported this view, citing various case laws that reinforce that proceedings under Section 263 cannot be based solely on audit objections. Issue 6: Audit Objection Basis for Section 263 Proceedings The Tribunal noted that the AO had responded to the audit objections, explaining in detail why they were not acceptable. The Tribunal found that initiating Section 263 proceedings based on these objections was not valid. Issue 7: Limited Scrutiny under CASS The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for large value cash deposits during the demonetization period. The AO issued various notices and received satisfactory replies from the assessee. The Tribunal held that the AO was not authorized to go beyond the issues specified in the limited scrutiny, and thus, the Pr. CIT could not initiate Section 263 proceedings on this basis. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The proceedings under Section 263 were based on audit objections, which is not permissible. The AO had made necessary enquiries and taken a plausible view. Therefore, the orders passed by the Pr. CIT under Section 263 were cancelled, and the appeals of the assessees were allowed.
|
