9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the subject matter of order u/s.263 by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and therefore, on this issue, the AO has not formed any view. When no view has been taken, no enquiry has been conducted, when no reasons on facts has been placed on record, the order of assessment is bound to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the case of Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT [ 1967 (5) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] and Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [ 1972 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] has held that where Assessing Officer has accepted a particular contention/issue without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [ 2000 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s common, both these cases were heard together and disposed of vide this consolidated order. The Ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that ITA No.422/PUN/2019 for assessment year 2011-12 may be taken as lead case for deciding these appeals. ITA No.422/PUN/2019 ( Shri Nilesh Khodidas Patel) A.Y.2011-12 5. The facts in this case as placed on record, in the notice u/s.263 of the Act for assessment year 2011-12 dated 11.12.2018, it is stated that the assessment proceedings in this case were completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act without considering relevant provisions of the Act which prima facie warranted on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. Further, it is also noted that information was received from ITO (I & CI) that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as cost of capital asset for computation of capital gains. The Assessing Officer accepted the said contention and accepted the returned income while finalizing the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act. 5.2 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax on perusal of the materials available on records, noticed that no tangible material was available to prove the nexus between the particular property acquired and the loan amount obtained for such purpose and the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal (supra.) relied on was substantially different on facts. Therefore, the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax was of the opinion that the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 13.10.2016 was erroneous in so far as it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asons that as evident from the notice u/s.263 of the Act, the only purpose of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax for passing order was that the nexus between particular property acquired and the loan amount obtained for such purpose, was not proved and the interest paid on such loan claimed as cost of improvement in the property, these facts were accepted by the Assessing Officer without any independent enquiry and as such no reasons were formed by the Assessing Officer in his order. That further, the purpose of loan taken vis-à-vis property was also not examined in the order of the Assessing Officer. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147/148 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ld. DR that the only reason of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax for passing order u/s.263 of the Act was that these aforestated facts were not examined by the Assessing Officer before accepting the returned income and finalizing the assessment. 9. That before us, three hearings were accorded to the Ld. AR of the assessee and on each hearing, though the question was raised from the Bench to demonstrate the nexus between the property acquired and loan taken for the said purpose but the Ld. AR failed to demonstrate from the order of the Assessing Officer nor could provide any evidence that independent enquiry and verifications were conducted by the Assessing Officer on this issue. The Ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the ITO failed to apply his mind to the case in all perspective and the order passed by him was erroneous. Therefore, the Hon'ble High Court has rightly held exercise of the jurisdiction by the Commissioner u/s.263 was justified." Taking the totality of facts and circumstances and judicial pronouncements into consideration, we uphold the order passed u/s.263 of the Act by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.422/PUN/2019 is dismissed. ITA No.421/PUN/2019 ( Shri Haresh Khodidas Patel) A.Y.2011-12 13. Since parties herein have agreed that in ITA No.421/PUN/2019 for assessment year 2011-12, the facts are absolutely similar, issues common as with the facts and issues appearing in IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
