9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned credit and income of the assessee. AO cannot blow hot and cold together. In this case, the AO has considered unsecured loans taken from friends and relatives as cash loans and also levied penalty for contravention of provisions of Sec.263 of the Act. On the other hand, the PCIT has taken up the revision proceedings on very same loans and advances in light of provisions of Sec.68 of the Act. In our considered view, powers exercised by the PCIT u/s.269SS of the Act, is not in accordance with law. It is a well settled principle of law that the PCIT can exercise the powers only in a situation, where the assessment order by passed the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. In this case, the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 486 days, for which, a petition for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal along with Affidavit has been filed and explained the reasons for filing delay in appeal. The assessee further submitted that the delay of 486 days in filing of the appeal is neither intentional nor to derive any undue benefit, but beyond the control of the assessee, because, the assessee was under wrong understanding of law that there is no need to file appeal against revision order passed by the PCIT, when law provides for challenging consequential order passed by the AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Act. However, when the assessee has approached Mr.T.Banusekar, CA to represent his appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mr.T.Banuskar, CA enquired the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f law or wrong advice of Counsel who handled the case, otherwise, no person would happily pay taxes when the authorities have imposed taxes on certain income. In this case, on perusal of details available on record, we find that the assessee himself had represented his case before the PCIT through his Accountant, but not through a professional who is well-versed with taxation laws. We, therefore, to this extent agree with arguments of the assessee. No doubt, ignorance of law is not an excuse, but it cannot be expected from each person, to know laws of this country, more particularly complex laws like Income Tax Act. Moreover, the issue involved in the appeal filed by the assessee is having prima facie merits in favour of the assessee. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd advances in cash excess of prescribed limit. The case has been, subsequently taken up for revision proceedings u/s.263 of the Act, and after considering relevant submissions of the assessee, the PCIT has set aside the assessment order by passed the AO u/s.143(3) of the Act, and direct the AO to verify the unsecured loans taken from friends and relatives in light of provisions of Sec.68 of the Act. 6. The Ld.AR for the assessee referring to order passed by the AO u/s.143(3) of the Act, and revision order passed by the PCIT u/s.263 of the Act, submitted that, the assessment order passed by the AO, is neither erroneous nor prejudice to the interest of the Revenue, because, the PCIT has exercised the jurisdiction and set aside the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record and gone through orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the PCIT had exercised the jurisdiction on the issue of unsecured loans taken from friends and relatives, amounting to Rs.27,70,000/- and directed the AO to examine the loans to ascertain identity, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the parties. It is also an admitted fact that those unsecured loans taken from friends and relatives were subject matter of deliberations from the AO, during the course of assessment proceedings, u/s.143(3) of the Act, which is evident from the fact that those loans have been considered by the AO in light of provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act, and levied penalty u/s.271D of the Act, amounting to Rs.27,70,000/-, by holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has already considered amounts to question as loans and levied penalty u/s.271D of the Act. Further, the assessee had settled the tax dispute under Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, 2020 and paid necessary taxes. Therefore, from the above, it is very clear that there is no prejudice caused to the Revenue. 9. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the PCIT is erred in revision of assessment order u/s.263 of the Act, because the assessment order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. Hence, we quashed the revision order passed by the PCIT u/s.263 of the Act. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
