9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t aside issue of verification of new cash creditors introduced during the year - Held that:- This matter was also properly examined by the A.O. The assessee filed its reply stating all facts in his letter dated 18.8.2011. The A.O. applied his mind and took a decision. The assessee also filed affidavit, which was considered by the A.O. The contents of the affidavit are deemed to be accepted in the absence of cross-examination. CIT set aside the case on account of allowing telescopic by the A.O. of Rs. 2 lakhs surrendered during the course of survey - Held that:- Investment in house at 154 G-Block, Sriganganagar, the A.O. made enquiries. The assessee surrendered Rs. 2 lakhs of brokerage receipt, which is mentioned in first para at page 9 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in passing the order u/s 263 of the Act even when the matters were properly dealt by the ACIT at the time of assessment proceedings. 3. That the ld. CIT erred in holding that the assessee has made total investment of Rs. 132.03 lakhs in various properties out of his undisclosed income and surrendered Rs. 72 lakhs only and directing the A.O. to make addition of Rs. 60.03 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. 4. That the ld. CIT erred in setting aside the case on issue of verification of new cash creditors introduced during the year amounting to Rs. 13,50,000/-. 5. The ld. CIT erred in setting aside the case on account of allowing telescopic by the A.O. of Rs. 2 lakhs surrendered during the course of survey." 3. We have heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id for purchase of land situated at 4 ML, Sriganganagar, which is different that the amount of Rs. 60.03 lakhs invested in other properties. According to the ld. CIT, the A.O. should have made a separate addition of Rs. 60.03 lakhs. 2. The A.O. has not properly examined and verified the new creditors/loan of Rs. 13,50,000/- introduced during the year. 3. Details regarding business receipts from property brokerage of the assessee has not been verified by the A.O. and the A.O. has not made any enquiry in respect of investment in residential property situated at 154 G Block Sriganganagar. 5. We have heard both sides in detail. We have also perused carefully the entire evidences available on record. It is trite that an order can be revise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CIT is required to exercise revisional power within the bounds of the law and has to satisfy the need of fairness in administrative action and fair play with due respect to the principle of audi alteram partem as envisaged in the Constitution of India as well as in section 263. An order can be treated as 'erroneous' if it was passed in utter ignorance or in violation of any law; or passed without taking into consideration all the relevant facts or by taking into consideration irrelevant facts. The 'prejudice' that is contemplated under section 263 is the prejudice to the Income Tax administration as a whole. The revision has to be done for the purpose of setting right distortions and prejudices caused to the Revenue in the above context. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income estimated by the Assessing Officer. (vii) The Assessing Officer exercise quasi-judicial power vested in him and if he exercise such power in accordance with law and arrives as a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the CIT does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. (viii) The CIT, before exercising his jurisdiction under section 263, must have material on record to arrive at a satisfaction. (ix) If the Assessing Officer has made enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings on the relevant issues and the assessee has given detailed explanation be a letter in writing and the Assessing Officer allowed the claim on being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid that he has not applied his mind. In this regard, the following decisions of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court are relevant:- 1. CIT Vs. Girdhari Lal 258 ITR 331 [Raj] 2. CIT Vs. Ganpat Ram Vishnoi 296 ITR 292 [Raj] 3. CIT Vs. Shiv Hari Madhusudan 233 ITR 649 [Raj] It is settled position of law that when the A.O. adopts one of the permissible course of law, the ld. CIT does not agree with it, the order cannot be treated as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue unless the view taken by the A.O. is unsustainable in law. It is well settled proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Sohara Wollen Mills reported in 296 ITR 278 in which it has been laid down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
