9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to assessee and reply by assessee to ld AO was shown to us to show on these four issues that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind on any of them. According to us case before us is of "lack of inquiry" and not absence of any inquiry. All judicial precedents relied up on before us related to absence of adequate inquiry but none of them dealt with the issues of complete lack of inquiry as in case before us. Hence, we do not have any hesitation in upholding action of ld CIT in invoking his jurisdiction u/s 263 - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 2860/Del/2010 - - - Dated:- 3-4-2018 - Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava And Shri Prashant Maharishi, JJ. Appellant by Shri Ashwani Taneja, Advocate Shri Shantanu Jain Respondent by Smt. Parmita Tripathy CIT DR ORDER Prashant Maharishi, 01. M/s P TC Impex (India) Private Limited files this appeal for A. Y. 2005 06 against the order of The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Xvii, New Delhi passed on 09/02/2010 under section 263 of The Income Tax Act. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeals:- i. that having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT has erred in law and on facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s engaged in trading, and processing of dry fruits, spices etc. Assessee filed its return of income on 31/10/2005 declaring income of ₹ 96,450/ . Consequent to that assessment under section 143 (3) of the income tax act was passed on 31/12/2007. Addition on account of suppression of sales was made of ₹ 7389823/ and disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B was made of ₹ 15741762/ . Consequently the assessment order assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹ 232,28,035/ against the returned income of ₹ 96,450/ . Assessee aggrieved with the order of the Ld. assessing officer preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) XVII, New Delhi. The Ld. CIT (A) vide order dated on 15/3/2010 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. He granted relief of ₹ 7389823/ on account of suppression of sales. Furthermore he also held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 10 B of the income tax act and deleted the disallowance made by the Ld. assessing officer of ₹ 157,41,762/ . Therefore, in fact the assessee got the complete relief against both the disallowances made by the Ld. assessing officer before the Ld. CIT (A). Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al to the interest of the revenue to that extent. For this, he directed the AO to verify the source of the cash deposited in the bank account and to decide the issue afresh. 07. With respect to the fixed deposit receipt he held that the recognition of interest stated by the assessee is not correct system adopted by the assessee, anyway according to him, the AO has not verified this aspect and therefore the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. He therefore directed the AO to examine this issue and charge to income tax the interest accrued on the FDRs upto the end of the assessment year under consideration. 08. With respect to the loan of ₹ 4 Lacs, he held that as the assessing officer has not made any verification in this regard, hence, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue therefore the Ld. assessing officer was directed to make necessary verification in this regard. 09. With respect to the bank statements without any narration filed before the Ld. assessing officer, it is held that assessee has not made any submission in this regard except saying that the books of accounts were produced before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en received from Jericho with the trading Co iv. ₹ 2 Lacs have been received from M/s Kumar overseas, v. ₹ 175,000/- has been received from Narayan international, vi. ₹ 2.40 Lacs from Narsinghdas Ved Prakash, vii. ₹ 1 lakh from whom Prakash Deepak Kumar, viii. ₹ 3 Lacs from Ramkrishna and company, ix. ₹ 175000/- from Senapati trading Co and x. ₹ 75,000 from shyamm international and xi. ₹ 1 lakh from Sukhlal Chetan Kumar. He further referred to the paper book furnished before us wherein at serial No. 9 is the copy of cashbook of the assessee from 01/04/2004 to 31/07/2004 at page No. 52 55, which has been certified by him to be available before the assessing officer also. He referred to the cashbook and submitted that as per the audited accounts available of the assessee there was an opening balance of ₹ 4.20 lakhs in the cashbook and hence there was availability of ₹ 16.55 Lacs on account of sales from these parties which have been deposited in the bank account on respective dates. He therefore submitted that before the assessing officer the complete details were furnished showing that the cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement he submitted that assessee has produced books of accounts including the bank account and hence the description of transactions were produced before the Ld. assessing officer therefore it cannot be the case of the Ld. AO that he did not have any opportunity of examination of the bank accounts of the assessee. 15. In view of this is submitted that there was no error in the order of the Ld. assessing officer and it is not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue either. Therefore, he submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT passed under section 263 of the income tax act cannot be sustained. 16. The Ld. authorized representative further relied upon the following decisions:- i. CIT versus Max India Limited 295 ITR ii. CIT versus Greenwald Corporation (sc) to submit that where an order of assessment passed by the Ao can be interfered with the only reason that another view is possible. iii. Sunbeam auto limited versus CIT 100 TTj 209 iv. CIT versus Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 v. CIT versus Geometric Software Solutions Private Limited ITA No. 2960 of 2009 vi. CIT versus Anilkumar Sharma ITA No. 820 del 2009 dated 24/2/2010 The main contention of the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19 the Ld. CIT (A) has noted that the books of accounts and vouchers but produced before the assessing officer on 26/12/2007 and is 29/12/2007 however the assessing officer has not taken the same on record. He therefore submitted that the statement made by the Ld. assessing officer in his assessment order in paragraph No. 1 is incorrect. Reasons and Decision 21. We have carefully considered the rival contention and also gone through the order of the Ld. CIT u/s 263 and the order of the assessing officer passed u/s 143 (3) of the act which was subject to revision by the CIT. We have also perused the various case laws cited before us by the parties. According to section 263 of the Act, Commissioner of Income tax can resort to corrective measures by revising the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, if after examining records such assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, he (the Commissioner of Income-tax) found that such an order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In Malabar industrial Co Ltd versus CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) Hon‟ble Supreme Court held the Commissioner has satisfied of twin conditions namel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31/12/2007. This itself shows that assessing officer has not looked at the books of accounts which are allegedly produced before AO as per version of the assessee on 26/12/2007. This too is the submission of the assessee before CIT (A) which has not been adjudicated by CIT (A). Even otherwise, mere production of books of accounts does not make the issues before us fall in to the category of inadequate inquiry‟. If we agree to such an argument then, in all cases where the books of accounts were produced before the ld AO, then the case would fall outside the purview of section 263 of the act. Further No records of communication by the AO to assessee and reply by assessee to ld AO was shown to us to show on these four issues that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind on any of them. According to us case before us is of lack of inquiry‟ and not absence of any inquiry. All judicial precedents relied up on before us related to absence of adequate inquiry but none of them dealt with the issues of complete lack of inquiry as in case before us. Hence, we do not have any hesitation in upholding action of ld CIT in invoking his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the act. Hence, ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
