9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee by filing confirmations and affidavits. The AO after conducting enquiries came to the conclusion that the source of investment in land has been duly explained by the assessee and hence, no addition was made. The order of AO may be prejudicial to the interest of revenue but the same is not erroneous as the AO has taken a possible view after conducting prudent enquiries and examining the documents on record. In so far as the contention of the Department that since the impugned order has been passed after the amendment, therefore, amended provisions of section 263 would apply, we do not find favour with this contention. The amendment to section 263 by the Finance Act, 2015 is effective from 01-06-2015 and does not operate retrosp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolhapur dated 10-03-2016 for the assessment year 2010-11 passed u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 2. Shri C.H. Naniwadekar appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee purchased agricultural land admeasuring 2.26 R at Sangli on 11-10-2010 vide purchase deed No. 3661/10 for consideration of ₹ 36 lakhs. No return of income was filed by the assessee for the impugned assessment year. On the basis of AIR information, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 148 on 06-06-2012 to the assessee. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on 22.02.2013 declaring total income of ₹ 12/- from other source an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act to the lenders and recorded their statements. After examining the entire trail of source of funds the Assessing Officer was satisfied and accepted the contentions of assessee. Hence, no addition was made in the income returned. The ld. AR placed on record copy of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s. 142(1) of the Act and the questionnaire issued along with the said notice. The ld. AR submitted that it is a well settled law that where enquiries have been conducted by the Assessing Officer, the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax cannot invoke revisional jurisdiction merely for the reason that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. A perusal of impugned order clearly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ricultural land and hand loans taken by assessee to finance the said purchase. Secondly, the amendment to section 263 would not apply to the assessment year under appeal. The amendment is prospective in nature and would be effective from 01-06-2015. The date of passing of order u/s. 263 is not relevant. The relevant factor is the assessment year. In support of his contentions the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Reliance Money Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No. 3259/Mum/2017 for assessment year 2012-13 decided on 06-10-2017; ii. M/s. Arun Kumar Garg HUF Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No. 3391/Del/2018 for assessment year 2014-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . All the lenders are closely related to the assessee and have supported the assessee by filing confirmations and affidavits. The Assessing Officer after conducting enquiries came to the conclusion that the source of investment in land has been duly explained by the assessee and hence, no addition was made. The order of Assessing Officer may be prejudicial to the interest of revenue but the same is not erroneous as the Assessing Officer has taken a possible view after conducting prudent enquiries and examining the documents on record. 7. In so far as the contention of the Department that since the impugned order has been passed after the amendment, therefore, amended provisions of section 263 would apply, we do not find fav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
