9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000/- per month, the same was also found debited in the personal account. In view of the above, considering the fact that AO has completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) after issuing the show cause notice dt. 15-02-2013 u/s. 142(1) calling various details under 11 heads including confirmation of loans and advances in respect of cheques discounted, source of advances made in the finance business etc. These indicate that all aspects have been examined by the AO. Therefore, the CIT’s observation that AO has not examined these issues does not have any basis. Moreover, when assessee has pointed out the same before the CIT in the proceedings u/s. 263, it is incumbent upon the CIT to examine the contentions and give findings rather than setting aside the assessment, which is already subject matter of appeal before CIT(A) on other issues. As can been seen from the notice issued and the assessment order by AO do indicate that he has applied his mind to the issues. If there was an enquiry, even if it is inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass order u/s. 263. Respectfully following the principles laid down Spectra Shares and Scrips Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT [2013 (6) T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the purpose of business. As far as personal drawings, it was submitted that assessee had debited an amount of ₹ 3,08,760/- towards drawings. On the reason that these aspects have not been examined by the AO, Ld. CIT set aside the assessment by stating as under: 6. I have perused the explanation of the assessee objecting to the proposed issues emanating from the show cause notice u/s. 263 of the I T Act. It is clarified by the Authorized Representative that the amount of ₹ 12,01,742/- disclosed in the profit loss account including the interest income of ₹ 2,81,210/-. Therefore, there is no cause for revisiting the same issue in the present proceedings initiated u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act. However, on perusal of the assessment record, it is noticed that the assessee never disclosed the interest income of ₹ 2,81,210/- separately either in the Income Tax Return or in the profit and loss account filed during the course of scrutiny proceedings. In fact, in a separate note on income, the assessee has clearly stated that in the activity of cheque discounting received commission of ₹ 12,01,742/- in the financial year 2009-10 and the same was shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn of income and the same is also figuring in the departmental data base and the AO has given credit as per 26AS. He also referred to the detailed submissions made before CIT, particularly to page 20 of the Paper Book, wherein it was submitted that assessee had commission amount of ₹ 9,20,532/- and the interest amount of ₹ 2,81,210/- totaling to ₹ 12,01,742/-. It was further submitted that as against this amount, after claiming various expenditures, the net profit transferred to capital account was at ₹ 3,21,540/- which was the gross total income offered. Assessee claimed various other expenditures including PF and NSC. These aspects were examined by the AO and referred to the show cause notice issued by the AO in the course of scrutiny proceedings on 15-02-2013. He also referred to the assessment order wherein AO has given a finding that after examining the material furnished, total income returned by assessee was computed. Ld. Counsel further submitted that CIT cannot direct to make roving enquiries, as considered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Spectra Shares and Scrips Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT [354 ITR 35] (AP). 4. Ld. CIT in reply however ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITR 35] (AP), after analyzing the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner u/s. 263 has culled out the following principles: a) The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If erroneous but is not prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but it is prejudicial to the Revenue recourse cannot be had to Sec.263 (1) of the Act. b) Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of Revenue: or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. c) To invoke suo motu revisional powers to reopen a concluded assessment under Sec.263, the Commissioner mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
