9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d invoking provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and directing revision of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the ACIT, Circle-6(2), Mumbai on the alleged ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 2. The appellant prays that since the assessment order passed by the AO was after making full enquiry, it cannot be regarded as erroneous and accordingly the action of the CIT in invoking provisions of section 263 and revising assessment order be held ab-initio and / or otherwise void and bad in law. 3. The appellant further prays that order passed u/s 263 of the Act, in the facts and ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fact that the same had been offered to tax under the head 'income from business and profession'. 2. The appellant, therefore, prays that the order passed u/s 263 of the Act be struck down as null and void and assessment order of the AO be restored and it be held that on the facts and circumstances, that the amount offered by the appellant under the head 'income from business and profession' should be accepted. Ground No.IV 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT erred in directing the AO, to disallow all the expenses in the nature of depreciation, maintenance, repairs, insurance etc pertaining to the alleged rented portion of the offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ails are given at page 51 of the paper book. Thus, relevant income has not been taxed by the AO, to that extent the assessment order dated 29.12.2006 is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. CIT is of the opinion that the current AY 2004-05 is covered by the said agreement. In response to the show cause notice, assessee explained that the said agreement was not given effect and given various reasons which are discussed in para 12 of the impugned order. After considering the objections raised by the assessee, the CIT mentioned that the assessee has not denied the existence of the agreement and has not furnished the reasons for not implementing the terms and conditions of the said agreement. He accordingly, set aside the order of the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cupied by the assessee. In this regard, the Bench raised varios question on the assessee's failure to recognize the income due to the assessee from the sister concern. 5.1. Eventually, Ld Counsel fairly mentioned that he would not press the ground relating to the validity of the jurisdiction of the CIT u/s 263 of the Act. However, Ld Counsel mentioned that the direction of the CIT in assessing the said receipts under the head 'income from house property' is incorrect as the order of the CIT has not interpreted the provisions of the agreement and ignored the fact that the said receipts may fall in the scope of business receipts. Further, Ld Counsel mentioned that it is not a rental agreement as mistakenly understood by the Ld CIT-8 for taxi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties, perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities and the paper book filed before us. We have also perused the contents of the impugned agreement dated 28.8.2003. It is a fact that the sharing of the space of the assessee by the PGHH came up for discussion during the original assessment proceedings. Despite the accrual of income to the assessee, assessee did not offer the same to the taxation and caused loss to the Revenue. We have also considered the concession offered by the Ld Counsel on the issue of not pressing the issue of validity of jurisdiction of CIT u/s 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the legal issue on the validity of the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act is dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly, grounds no.1 is required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
