9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his assessment order passed u/s. 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 31.03.2015 made a passing reference to the filing of details as filed the details called for and this was with the prior approval of Joint Commissioner of Income- Tax, Central Range 3, Chennai as required u/s. 153D of the Act. We noted that the above seized document found from the premises of Indo Asia Finance Ltd., which contains the details of agreement for sale dated 13.03.2006 of Shri Jayanthilal Challani, one of the Directors of Saravana Foundations Ltd., now known as Saravana Global Holdings Ltd., i.e., assessee-company, who gave a power of attorney to Shri T. Krishnarajan to purchase certain lands from Shri B. Govindaraj and others. The seized documents are never examined by the AO as is apparent from the assessment order and to counter the same, the assessee has not filed any evidence before us. Even otherwise, there is no evidence that the transaction has been carried out by Shri Jayanthilal on his own and not behalf of the assessee company. This has to be established. Hence, we find no infirmity in the revision and hence, the same is confirmed. Accordingly, this appeal of assessee is dismissed. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be revised is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue is not present to justify the initiation of Revision proceeding u/s. 263. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in passing order u/s. 263, while the Assessing Officer examined the issue at the time of assessment which is clear from the questionnaire issued before completing the assessment. Inadequate Enquiry 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income tax, Central 1 Chennai erred in not considering the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that there is a difference between lack of enquiry and adequacy of enquiry and that it is only when there is no enquiry that jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act can be invoked. 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Central I Chennai erred in not considering that he may assume jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act only in cases of lack of enquiry and not in cases even 1 the enquiry is considered inadequate. 6 The Learned Commissioner of Tax, Central I erred in passing the revisionary order u/s. 263, since the Commissioner had not given any reason or indicated any material evidence which he was in possession so as to satisfy himself, that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation or details have been called for from the assessee with respect to the said transaction as per said seized document. According to PCIT, the AO not enquired into the above aspect or no verification carried out before passing the said assessment order dated 31.03.2015, the assessment is erroneous so far as to prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as the sale amount disbursed amounting to Rs. 19,12,500/- remained untaxed. The assessee replied that the seized document, as pointed out in the notice u/s. 263 of the Act, the AO formed the opinion that the seized material belong to the assessee company and accordingly, initiated proceedings u/s. 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act vide notice dated 28.10.2014. Further, the ld. counsel stated that the AO vide a common questionnaire dated 12.11.2014 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14 wanted to enquire about the seized material, for which the assessee s counsel specifically answered the query that the sale agreement for purchase of land from Shri Krishnan for an amount of Rs. 19,12,500/- was executed by Shri Jayanthilal without the knowledge of the Board and the payments are not made from the company and this issue can be sorted out w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de in itself and the assessment framed in these provisions cannot be made subject matter of revision u/s. 263 of the Act. The ld.counsel argued that the assessment in case of search or requisition made on or after 01.06.2003 by inserting the provisions of section 153A or 153C of the Act and this opens with non-obstante clause and overrides other provisions of the Act. According to him, no revision can be carried out u/s. 263 of the Act for assessments framed u/s. 153A or 153C of the Act. 4.1 As regards to assumption of jurisdiction by PCIT for revision of the assessment order, the ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the assessment order that the assessee filed complete details before the AO and he stated that the AO has already formed an opinion in regard to seized material belonging to the assessee company and accordingly initiated proceedings u/s. 153C r.w.s. 153A vide notice dated 28.10.2014 to assess or reassess the total income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year 2007-08. The ld.counsel further submitted that the AO vide common questionnaire dated 12.11.2014 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14 wanted to enquire about seized material on rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed any evidence before us. Even otherwise, there is no evidence that the transaction has been carried out by Shri Jayanthilal on his own and not behalf of the assessee company. This has to be established. Hence, we find no infirmity in the revision and hence, the same is confirmed. Accordingly, this appeal of assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 1384/CHNY/2017 7. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the revision order passed by the PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act revising the assessment framed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2015 for the relevant assessment year 2013-14. For this assessee has raised following ground Nos. 3 to 5:- Revision of orders prejudicial and erroneous to revenue 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income tax, has erred in considering the assessment order as erroneous without establishing that there was no incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of Law. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income tax, erred in holding that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue when all the records and details sought by the assessing officer had been produced at the time of assessment as stated in the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of expenses incurred and claimed in the P L account vide queries nos.14,15,19 and 20 of the letter. The PCIT accordingly revised the assessment and directed the AO to redo the assessment for the relevant assessment year 2013-14 by observing in para 8 as under:- 8. In view of the foregoing discussions, the said assessment order dated 30.3.2015, passed by the AO, for A.Y.2013-14 u/s 143(3) of the Act, is thus held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Hence the same is set-aside u/s 263 of the Act and the AO is directed to re-do the assessment, with regard to the various issues including those points raised under CASS, for A.Y.2013-14 in the case of the assessee, after conducting necessary enquiries and verification with regard to such issues, in accordance with law, in the preceding paras, and after giving due opportunity to the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee argued that the AO has examined the details in regard to sundry debtors, details of loans and advances, accounts squared off during the year, details of expenses claimed in the P L account and various such oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
