9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port from the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. [ 2012 (1) TMI 76 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] Therefore in our view, the decisions relied by the Ld.AR are distinguishable on facts with that of assessee. We therefore do not fine any infirmity in the action of the Ld.Pr.CIT in invoking the provisions of section 263 - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 509/Bang/2022 - - - Dated:- 21-9-2022 - SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Shri C. Ramesh, CA Revenue by : Shri Praveen Karanth, CITDR ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of the order u/s. 263 dated 15.03.2022 passed by the Ld.Pr.CIT, Bengaluru 2, Bengaluru for assessment year 2017-18 on following grounds of appeal: The Appellant objects to the Revision Order passed u/s. 263 on the following grounds in so far as it is prejudicial to the as it is opposed to law and circumstances of the case: - Originally the Appellant has taken only one ground relating to deduction u/s.35(2AB). The following grounds were not taken by oversight. Hence the Appellant is filing Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Form 3CL issued by DSIR thereby determining the total taxable income at ₹ 1,06,01,422/- in the hands of assessee. 2.3 The Ld.Pr.CIT, called for the assessment records and examined the exemptions claimed on agricultural income of Rs.14,50,17,783/- by the assessee that was allowed by the Ld.AO in the order passed under section 143 (3) of the Act. He also noted that a sum of Rs.46,44,792/- was deposited in the bank account of assessee during the demonetisation period. 2.4 The Ld.Pr.CIT was of the opinion that, the assessing officer did not make sufficient enquiries to understand the facts behind the agricultural income declared by the assessee. The Ld.Pr.CIT, accordingly issued notice under section 263 of the Act, on 18/03/2021, reproduced as under: On perusal of your Income Tax assessment records, it is noticed that the assessment concluded by Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1) Bengaluru for the assessment year 2017-18 on 23-12-2019 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the following reason(s); 2. It is seen that scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) in your case was concluded on 23-12-2019 by assessing the total income at Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 10 (1) of the Act. 2.7 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.Pr.CIT, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. All the grounds raised by assessee are in respect of the validity of the proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act by Ld.Pr.CIT. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that, the activity carried on by the assessee falls under agricultural operation and is eligible for claim under section 10 (1) of the Act. He submitted that, before the Ld.AO, during the course of assessment proceedings, under section 143(3) of the Act, the assessee filed various details/documents in respect of the claim. Referring to the show cause notice issued by the Ld.AO during the original assessment proceedings dated 16/12/2019, the Ld.AR submitted that, the assessing officer had raised a specific query in respect of the exempt income and the letter filed by assessee dated 19/12/2019 furnishing all the relevant details in respect of the claim. He submitted that, all material facts necessary for completing the assessment was available before the Ld.AO and therefore no prejudice is caused to the revenue. 5. It is the argument of the Ld.AR that, merely because issue was not elabora ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e revisionary proceeding amounts to the assessment order to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In support of this argument he placed reliance on following decisions: decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., reported in (2012) 17 taxman.com 203; decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT versus Namdhari Seeds Pvt.Ltd., reported in (2011) 16 taxman.com 83 decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of a than the Ltd versus CIT reported (2021) 124 taxman.com 435. We have perused submissions advanced for both sides in light of records placed before us. 10. In the present facts, it is not in dispute that, the assessee claimed exemption under section 10(1) of the Act, amounting to Rs.14,50,17,783/-. It is the submission of the Ld.AR that, a specific query was raised by the Ld.AO during original assessment proceedings regarding the exemption claimed amounting to Rs. 14,50,17,783/-. Pages 14-15 of the paperbook filed before this Tribunal is the notice issued under section 143(1) of the Act, wherein specific query relating to agricultural income of Rs.14,50,17,783/- c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
