9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecting the AO to examine the issues that were set out for limited scrutiny under CASS afresh. The assessee is always at liberty to show as to how no adverse inference or addition is called for. We, therefore, confirm the order of the CIT. - Decided against assessee. - IT (IT) A. No. 57/Bang/2021 - - - Dated:- 23-9-2021 - N. V. Vasudevan , Vice President And B. R. Baskaran , Member ( A ) For the Appellant : Nitish Ranjan, CA For the Respondents : Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT (DR) ORDER Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT (International Taxation), Bengaluru, u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), in relation to Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The assessee is an individual. He was a non-resident during the relevant previous year. The assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 13.08.2015 declaring total income of ₹ 50,72,900/-. The case of the assessee was picked up for limited scrutiny viz., for the purpose of verifying large cash deposits in savings bank account and with regard to transfer of property during the previous year. The AO issued a notice dated 29.07.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Out of cash in hand 01-10-2014 IDBI Bank 93,500 Out of rent received and cash withdrawals 27-10-2014 IDBI Bank 1,00,000 Out of cash withdrawal made dated 09-10-2014 29-10-2014 Vijaya Bank 50,000 Out of rent received 24-12-2014 IDBI Bank 1,00,000 Out of cash withdrawal made dated 09-10-2014 31-12-2014 Vijaya Bank 13,500 Out of rent received 02-01-2015 IDBI Bank 97,000 Out of rent received and cash withdrawal dated 30-12-2014 31-01-2015 Vijaya Bank 30,000 Out of rent received 12-02-2015 IDBI Bank 1,00,000 Out of rent received and cash withdrawal 31-03-2015 IDBI Bank 1,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined properly. Further, the statement of affairs as on 31.03.2014 and 31.03.2015 were not obtained and analysed to verify the availability of funds for the purchase of property purchased on 09.06.2014. 5. By letter dated 12.11.2018, the Assessee submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, upon submission of the details, documents, information and clarifications called upon by the AO, we were asked to explain how the cash cheques were to be regarded as cash withdrawals from bank and hence, it was clarified that the cash withdrawals as on 03.04.2014 and 05.06.2014 are in fact bearer cheques issued in the name of A.K. Karanth (alias Krishnamurthy Karanth alias Krishna Karanth), who manages the affairs of the assessee, for the purpose of Investment, which have been subsequently deposited on the direction of the assessee as the purposes for which the cheques were issued were not served. With regard to verification of sources for investments made for property purchased vide Sale deed dated 09.06.2014, the details called for had been submitted from time to time. Further, sources have been explained and the relevant bank extracts showing sources and payments pertaining t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 263 of the Act should be held to be bad in law. Learned DR relied on the order of the CIT. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. The order passed by the AO accepting the return of income does not make any reference to any of the arguments put forward on behalf of the assessee and has merely accepted the return of income filed by the assessee. The learned Counsel for the assessee that the mere fact that the Assessing Officer did not make any reference to the facts that transpired in the course of assessment proceedings and make a reference to those facts in the assessment order cannot make the order erroneous when the issues were indeed looked into. The entire details were filed and the order itself indicates that it can be inferred that the Assessing Officer not only made enquiries, but satisfied himself with the assessee's replies furnished from time to time in support of its stand. However, we find that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., in ITA No. 588/2006 judgment dated 04.01.2012 referred by the CIT in the impugned order, had to deal with the following question of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority should be supported by reasons, however brief it may be, and in a situation where it is only a question of computation in accordance with relevant articles of a double taxation avoidance agreements and that should be clearly indicated in the order of the assessing authority, whether or not the assessee had given particulars or details of it. It is the duty of the assessing authority to do that and if the assessing authority had failed in that, more so in extending a tax relief to the assessee, the order definitely constitutes an order not merely erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore while the commissioner was justified in exercising the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, the tribunal was definitely not justified in interfering with this order of the commissioner in its appellate jurisdiction. 29. Therefore, we answer the question posed for our answer in the negative and against the assessee. Both appeal are allowed. Parties to bear their respective cost. 11. In short, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court took the view that if the order of the AO does not disclose the basis of his conclusion, then jurisdiction u/s. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
