9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revisionary authority itself sufficient to hold the action as unsustainable in law and our view has been invigorated in Jeewanlal limited [ 1975 (12) TMI 34 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] . Also in CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd [ 1993 (4) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has also taken similar view that, unless the revisionary authority forms a conclusion on the basis of concrete evidential material, it cannot reach to the conclusion rendering the order of assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 61/RPR/2021 - - - Dated:- 1-4-2022 - SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAMLAPPA D. BATTULL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri S. R. Rao For the Revenue : Shri P. K. Mishra ORDER PER JAMLAPPA D. BATTULL, AM; Against the revisionary order of Principal of Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1 [for short PCIT ] passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short the Act ] vide order dt 28/03/2021, for the assessment year [for short AY ] 2011-2012, the appellant assessee filed this appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [for short the Tribunal ] u/s 253 of the Act. 2. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26/12/2018 with an assessed total income of ₹2,12,78,880/- on account of an addition of ₹ 2,00,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, as unexplained cash credit, dislodging the claim of su bstantial premium on subscription of share capital from published shell companies. 5.2 On the receipt of objection from departmental audit, Ld PCIT invoked the revisionary powers vested in him by virtue of section 263(1) and without further placing on record any emblematic material, prefigured the assessment order as erroneous and consequently directed the Ld AO to reframe the assessment after conducting proper enquiry about genuineness of unsecured loan of ₹21,21,850/- as communicated by the revenue audit department via audit objection report. 5.3 Pending such direction before the Ld AO, the appellant company objected the perfunctory revisionary action of Ld PCIT on two-fold counts on grounds alleged at para 3 herein before. 6. After hearing to the rival contentions of both the parties; perused material placed on record and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of settled legal position and the case laws relied upon by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10,46,78,229 -0.020 1,650 1,879 2 Blue Bird Suppliers Pvt Ltd 5,51,00,408 0 5,35,28,750 -0.002 -0.61 0 7.4 In the light of above facts figures, the assessee was put to notice to displace the unhewn findings of the Ld AO and upon appellant s failure to do so, the assessment was culminated with reference to list of shell companies published by Government of India and its agencies etc., holding these subscribers as shell (paper) companies and consequently dislodging the claim of the assessee, entire amount of subscription was brought to tax as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 7.5 The said addition was assailed by the appellant before the first appellate authority vide an appeal dt 12/01/2019, however in order to buy peace of mind, the appellant subscribed for resolution of dispute by filing an application under Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 [for short VSVA ], consequently a Form No 3 is issued by the designated authority vide acknowledgement / certificate number 715802510111120 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings desultorily. 10. The Ld AR taken us through relevant pages of paper book to impress that, the action of revisionary action wasn t warranted and placing reliance on judicial precedents supported the grounds raised, whereas the Ld departmental representative [for short DR ] supported the 263 revisionary order for failure to conduct enquiries. 11. At this juncture, before going into the merits of the case, we first deal with the solitary legal ground raised by the appellant company and to hit the ball on the head, it will be apt to reproduce the provision of section 263(1) in verbatim as it stood and applicable to the AY under consideration; 11.1 263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue (1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he protection loss of revenue to the ex-chequer, and not otherwise. 11.6 In the light of ration laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court of India, we have the audacity to summarise the inferential but harmonious analysis of revisionary provision laid in section 263 of the Act, into a five steps Queen Principle , falling out of which shall debark authorities from assuming revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263; a. There must be an explicit query from the adjudicating tax authority as regards to any claim made including information supplied in the return of income filed or to be filed, and b. There must be direct, clear and an unreserved submission from the assessee in reply to aforesaid query, and c. The submission must be followed by detailed inquiry (and not enquiry) by the tax authorities into assessee s eligibility of claim, basis of claim and compliance of pre as well post conditions as may be attached to the claim under scrutiny, and d. There should be even-handed application of mind by the adjudicating authority in reaching out the allowability or dis-allowability of claim under consideration, e. And finally, the adjudication must ensure the correct applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
