9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us order cannot be the subject matter for revision u/s. 263 unless the second requirement of section 263 of the Act being prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue prevails. In this case, there was no material to show as to how the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous in so far as it would become prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue to invoke the jurisdiction u/s. 263 - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e gift received from assessee's sister and mother amounting to ₹ 60,00,000/- remained to be added back and also tax was to be computed on undisclosed income @ 30% u/s. 115BBE. The PCIT observed that in respect of the above, the Assessing Officer had neither made any finding nor obtained any supporting documents from the assessee while allowing. Thus, the PCIT observed that no requisite disallowance/verification had been made by her while completing the assessment. Accordingly, the PCIT held that the assessment order was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly, the PCIT set aside the assessment order to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo examination and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law and per time limit specified u/s. 153 of the I.T. Act, after affording due opportunity to the assessee. 5. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that section 263 can be invoked only when the assessment order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the Revenue. It was submitted that perusal of the assessment order, in unequivocal terms, showed that there has been enquiry by the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court in 259 ITR 502 and 313 ITR 65. In case reported in 259 ITR 502 it was held as follows: "Coming to the facts of the present case, it is the finding of fact given by the Tribunal that the assesse has produced relevant material and offered explanations in pursuance of the notices issued under section 142(1) as well as section 143(2) of the act and after considering the materials and explanation, the Income-tax Officer has come to a definite conclusion . The Commissioner of Income tax did not agree with conclusion reached by the Income-tax Officer. Section 263 of the Act does not empower him to take action on these facts to arrive at the conclusion that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Since the material was there on record and said material was considered by the Income -tax Officer and a particular view was taken, the mere fact that a different view can be taken, should not be the basis for an action under section 263 of the Act and it cannot be held to be justified". 5.3 The Ld. AR submitted that the decision was applicable here as also the principles enunciated in the decision reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11-2016". Thus, it was submitted that this was not a case of no inquiry, warranting order under section 263. 5.5 In the present facts, it was submitted that the Assessing Officer was satisfied, consequent to making an enquiry and examining the evidences produced by the assessee and this is a case where a view has been taken by the Assessing Officer on enquiry. Reliance was placed on 390 ITR. 292 (Bom). Thus, it was submitted that the Assessing Officer had made due enquiries with regard to cash deposits into the bank account, more particularly, after examining the details/explanation filed in the course of assessment proceedings. Hence, it was prayed that the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act by the PCIT may be dropped. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. Section 263 of the Income-tax Act seeks to remove the prejudice caused to the revenue by the erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. It empowers the Commissioner to initiate suo moto proceedings either where the Assessing Officer takes a wrong decision without considering the materials available on record or he takes a decision without making an enquiry into the matters, where such inquiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 9,350/- per month from M/s Ahalya Foundation on house property at X/X, Market (Po), Kadathy, Muvattupuzha. I had also received rent of ₹ 7,500/- per month from Sri. Muralidharan for an attached annexe building. The total rent received for the F.Y. 2013-14 amounted to Rs, 1,82,650/- as follows: From Ahalya Foundation 92,650 From Sri. Muralidharan 90,000 1,82,650 The income from house property would work out as follows: Rental Income 1,82,650 30% Standard Deduction 54,795 1,27,855 Less: Interest on loan taken for the house property from ICICl Bank 7,97,115 Income (-) 6,69,260 Since the net income from the house property was a loss, I have not included the same in the return. 2. I am enclosing a confirmation letter dated 23-08-2016 from my sister regarding gift by her and my mother to me during the F.Y, 2013-14.1 had also extracted and sold gravel earth from property at Kanikachal Village, Changanassery jointly held with my neice Nikitha for about ₹ 35 lakhs in F.Y. 2013-14. Thanking you, Yours faithfully sd/- Mithra Paul From, Chithra Shirilson 8/243,. Pottayil House, Mekkadampu(PO) Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam- 68231 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... planation given in a letter dated 03-10-2016 filed and also when appeared for hearing during the course of assessment, assssee revealed that she has carried out the sale of laterite and gravel earth from the lands owned by her in Muvattupuzha and Changanassery which was not disclosed in the return of income filed for the year. The assessee explained that the cash deposits made into her bank account were out of said laterite and gravel earth business. It was revealed that no books of accounts were maintained for said business and the turnover was below ₹ 1 crore during the previous year. The volume of cash deposits and the disclosure made by the assessee, lead to the conclusion that assessee's turnover of said business was below ₹ 1 crore and therefore income can be computed as per section 44AD of the Income Tax Act. However, as the assessee offered 10% turnover as income from the laterite and gravel earth business an amount of ₹ 9,50,000/- which being 10% of the total turnover ₹ 95,00,000/- is assessed to tax now. 3.1. Assessee concealed particulars of his income for the year and therefore penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is attracted in the case. Additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
