9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer arising from revisional proceedings, the action of the Pr. CIT cannot be faulted per se. We thus are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Pr.CIT. Hence, this ground in the assessee s appeal is dismissed. Initiation of penalty proceedings from Section 271AAB to Section 271(1)(c) - Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of Addl. CIT vs. JK D Costa [ 1981 (4) TMI 68 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has observed that failure of the Assessing Officer in recording satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings cannot be said to be a factor for vitiating the assessment order or making it erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The revisional Commissioner is thus not vested with power to rectify/modify such alleged errors in the revisional jurisdiction. Similar view has been expressed in Sunila Asasthi [ 2021 (7) TMI 299 - ITAT DELHI] and Amarjeet Dhall [ 2014 (4) TMI 1170 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] by placing reliance on series of decisions rendered in this regard. The plea of the assessee is thus found to be consistent with binding judicial precedents. In view of the Jurisdictional High Court expressing its view in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Adverting to Ground No.5(ii) supra, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Pr.CIT in the revisional order has alleged non disclosure / understatement of interest income to the tune of Rs.14,12,952/- on the basis of difference between the income returned by the assessee qua annual information statement, i.e., AIR information in the possession of the Department. 3.1 In the matter, the ld. counsel submitted that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s. Supreme Gold which is engaged in the business of bullion. The assessee inter alia was in receipt of interest from HHEC India Ltd., a Government of India undertaking. The assessee has earned interest income of Rs.36,30,57,245.49 from HHEC India Ltd. and disclosed the same in its P L account. A copy of relevant extract ledger account of the assessee in the books of M/s. HHEC India Ltd. placed in the paper book and also placed before PCIT in the revisional proceedings was referred and it was submitted that the identical amount was also shown to have been credited in the name of the assessee by M/s. HHEC India Ltd. It was thus contended that the interest income of Rs.13,91,302/- does not belong to the assessee and thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and thus susceptible to proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. The Ld. CIT-DR thus submitted that the ld. Pr.CIT is capable of modification in the charge for imposition of penalty under Section 263 of the Act where the Assessing Officer has committed glaring error resulting in loss of Revenue. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. First issue relates to understatement of interest income to the extent of Rs.14,12,952/-. The Pr.CIT on perusal of records found that the interest income is under-reported by the assessee to the above extent as detected from the corresponding AIR information available to the Department. Whereas the TDS amount was deducted on the higher figure and also claimed by the assessee in the return of income the assessee has reported interest income lower to above extent. In these facts, the Pr.CIT has invoked the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and has set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. In our view, the action of the Pr.CIT cannot be condemned as without jurisdiction. The Pr.CIT has sufficient basis to presume error in the assessment order in the absence of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) That the order passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-12, Delhi under section 263 of the Act, is arbitrary, biased and bad in law and in facts of the case. (2) That the assumption of jurisdiction by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 is bad in law as the order passed by the Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor pre-judicial to the interest of the revenue. (3) That the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has grossly erred in passing an order under section 263 and in summarily dismissing the submission of the appellant. (4) That the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has grossly erred in passing order u/s 263 without making any independent enquiry herself rendering the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 unsustainable in law and facts of the case. (5) Without prejudice to the above grounds that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Pr. C1T is bad in law. as the order passed by the Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has grossly erred in directing the AO to make further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
