9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961 by the Hon'ble CIT(C), Nagpur is illegal, invalid and bad-in-law. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(C), Nagpur erred in invoking the provision of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the assessment order was deficient in certain respect and thereby setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer and directing him to pass a fresh order. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(C), Nagpur erred in passing order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the Assessing Officer failed to make necessary inquiries to find genuineness of the transactions with M/s Religare Securities Ltd. entered by the assessee. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(C), Nagpur erred in stating that the assessee failed to reconcile share transaction vis a vis information received from the investigation wing. 5. The Appellant prays that order passed under section 263 of the Act to be struck down as null and void-ab-initio. 6. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and notwithstanding each other. 7. Any consequential relief, to which the Appellant may be entitled under the law in pursuance of the aforesaid grounds of appeal, or otherwise, may be thus granted. 8. The Appellant craves leav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of income of Rs. 1,36,84,703/- u/s 10(38) of the Act. According to the ld. CIT (Central), the Assessing Officer had failed to verify the genuineness of these transactions in the light of information received from the DDIT (Inv.), Jalgaon. Accordingly, the ld. CIT (Central) formed an opinion that the assessment order dated 28.03.2014 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Therefore, the ld. CIT (Central) issued a show-cause notice. In response to said show-cause notice, the appellant on 18.06.2015 contended that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had called for the details pertaining to the transactions. The appellant had filed the requisite details to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, on being satisfied himself with the explanation offered by the appellant, had chosen not to make any addition. Therefore, it was pleaded by the assessee that since the Assessing Officer had enquired into the genuineness of the transactions, the revision proceedings u/s 263 were not maintainable. 7. However, the ld. CIT (Central) observed that the Assessing Officer had failed to verif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee is aggrieved by an order of transfer of jurisdiction, the remedy of the assessee is to challenge such an order in independent proceedings either before the higher administrative authorities as per the Act or in any independent proceedings by way of writ petition placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jaswinder Kaur Koover vs. CIT, 295 ITR 80 (P&H). On merits of maintainability of order of revision u/s 263, the ld. CIT-DR submitted that the appellant had received payment of Rs. 1.35 crores and Rs. 2.88 crores from M/s. Religare Securities Ltd. and the Assessing Officer had not called for the details of said transactions nor examined the genuineness of the transactions in the light of the incriminating information received from Investigation Wing of the Department. There is an abatement of regular assessment proceedings pursuant to the assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the Act. Therefore, ld. CIT-DR submitted that if any information or material which is received during the course of assessment proceedings, the same should be considered by the Assessing Officer, in the assessment proceedings, non-consideration of such materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bom.) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as follows :- "13. The above issue which comes for our consideration is, did the Assessing Officer consider and examine the claim of the respondent before allowing a claim for deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Act. The respondent- assessee seeks to draw inference from the statement of case that there was an inquiry made before allowing the claim of deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Act at Rs. 92.81 lakhs. This inference is not justified. Mere using the word "allowed" does not mean examination and enquiry before allowing deduction under Section 90 HHC of the Act. The words "due verification" would include within its ambit not only inadequate inquiry/verification but also no enquiry/verification. However, in case the respondent-assessee was of the view that the claim has been examined by the Assessing Officer before allowing it, then respondent-assessee ought to have the statement of case modified/amended so as to bring the aforesaid facts on record, as held by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Assessing Officer was found to be a view taken by various authorities under the Act. In passing we may point out that as recorded in the statement of case, the Tribunal held the exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax to be bad in law as the view of the Assessing Officer was in line with the decision of the Tribunal in Mysore Exports Ltd. (supra). It is relevant to note that on the date when the Commissioner of Income Tax exercised his powers under Section 263 of the Act on 31.03.1995, the decision of the Tribunal in Mysore Exports Ltd. (supra) was not available before him as it was rendered on 19.05.1995." 13. In the present case, we are unable to discern from the record that the Assessing Officer had subjected to the claim of the appellant for exemption u/s 10(38) and took a plausible view nor could the appellant demonstrate with evidence before us. Therefore, in the present case non-examination of the claim by the Assessing Officer renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly, we uphold the order of revision passed by the ld. CIT (Central) u/s 263 of the Act. Thus, we do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and books of account are at Ranchi and so it will be convenient for him to co-operate with the assessment at Ranchi. Besides laches in approaching the Writ Court, the assessee-petitioner also submitted to the jurisdiction of the transferee authority at Ranchi. 20. This being so, the party once acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the transferee Court, all statutory rights which the assessee gets by virtue of section 127 vanish and, therefore, the assessee cannot assert that without affording opportunity as required under section 127, the case has been transferred. In this regard see Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. II, 3rd Ed., page 140, Pr. 265 and also the case in O.A.O.K. Lakshmanan Chettiar v. Commissioner, Corporation of Madras AIR 1927 Mad. 130, which are referred to in the decision in the case of Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India [1957] 31 ITR 565 (SC). 21. In the case of Pannalal Binjraj (supra), which is a Constitution Bench decision, the Supreme Court lays down the law to the effect that, "if an assessee has acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to whom a case has been transferred, he cannot subsequently object to the jurisdiction of the officer and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
