9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer passed the assessment order which is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Therefore the Revision proceedings initiated by the Ld. PCIT u/s. 263 is hereby quashed. Thus the grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed. - ITA No. 79/Ahd/2021 - - - Dated:- 7-10-2022 - Shri Waseem Ahmed , Accountant Member And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar , Judicial Member Appellant by : Shri Sunil Talati , A. R. Respondent by : Shri A. P. Singh , CIT / DR ORDER PER : T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER : - This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the Revision order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-3, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2016-17. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing low voltage switchgear and professional lighting solutions. For the Assessment Year 2016-17, the assessee filed its Return of Income on 21.11.2016 declaring Nil total income under the normal provision and paid tax of Rs. 1,29,3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder passed by the A.O. Therefore the invocation of proceedings u/s. 263 itself is invalid in law and relied upon various case laws. The assessee further replied that all the sale transactions were submitted to the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 11.10.2018 and the computation of income vide letter dated 18.10.2018 were submitted to the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has correctly assessed the same after due verification of evidences filed before him. Therefore the assessment order is not an erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The assessee further submitted that during the assessment year 2016-17, the assessee company has paid tax under the Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) provision of Rs. 1,29,32,700/- and not under the normal provisions, where the tax effect is Nil. Thus the assessment order is not at all prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, as there is no loss of revenue. Therefore the invocation of revision proceedings u/s. 263 is completely illegal and unjustifiable and produced the computation of income as follows: Particulars As per AO order As proposed by your good self ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y has offered lessor sale consideration by Rs 48,00,000/- in the return of income and in Assessment Order, and, held that order passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It is submitted that the Assessee has offered full sale consideration received on sale of property, which has been fully verified by the AO and there in no error whatsoever. It is further submitted that the complete details regarding full sale consideration of Rs. 37.98 Cr. were filed during the course of assessment proceeding and only after due verification of such details, the AO had correctly accepted the same. It is therefore submitted that the view so taken of holding the assessment order passed by A.O. as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue is incorrect and illegal and accordingly the direction to set aside the original assessment order and passing the fresh assessment order be cancelled. It be so held now. 3. The learned Pr. C.I.T. has erred in holding that the Ld AO has passed the Asst. Order u/s 143(3) of the Act without ascertaining the correct cost of acquisition claimed by the assessee. It is submitted that the assessee company has correctly claimed the cost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee on indexation of the cost of acquisition of the property at Rs. 1,55,86,797/-. The assessee also clarified that though the year of acquisition is mentioned as 1997-98 in the computation of income, however while considering the Cost Inflation Index, the assessee has correctly taken the Cost Inflation Index as Rs. 331 pertaining to the Financial Year 1997-98. Thus the Ld. Counsel pleaded that the assessing Officer while framing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) has dealt elaborately the submissions made by the assessee and verified the same and then passed the assessment order, which is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Once the Revision order is given effect to, even in that case there is no difference in the total tax liability. Thus there is no prejudicial caused to the interest of revenue and the entire exercise is liable to be quashed, since all details have been submitted before the Assessing Officer and then only the A.O. passed the assessment order. Thus the Ld. A.R. pleaded to quash the Revision order. 5. Per contra Ld. CIT/DR Shri A.P. Singh appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the Ld. PCIT and requested to uphold the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aged in various commercial and non-commercial activities. He was man of standing and means. In fact, the Commissioner has gone on record to suggest that he neither disputes the identity nor the creditworthiness of the brother of assessee to loan such amount. 21. The Assessing Officer having carried out such detailed inquiries, it was not open for the Commissioner to thereafter reopen the issues on mere apprehension and surmises. His two fundamental objections were that the Assessing Officer did not verify whether the remittances were from the own income or sources of the assessee and his brother or were merely by way of hawala transactions. In the process, he was also critical of the Assessing Officer not insisting on collecting the details of the accounts from which the foreign remittances were made to the Indian account of the said two persons. Without any material without any basis, the CIT could not have remanded the proceedings to the Assessing Officer to carry out further inquiries in order to ascertain whether the remittances were genuine or were in the nature of hawala transactions. In the entire order of the Commissioner, we do not find any basis for him to carry suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
