9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relates to the assessee. Therefore, no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee without resorting to the provisions of either sec.147/148 or sec.153C of the Act. Once the assessment framed u/sec.153C r.w.s.143(3) is held to be void being not in accordance with law on account of a combined satisfaction note for assessment years 2012-2013 to 2018-2019 instead of separate satisfaction note, no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the email dated 19.03.2021 without issuing a separate notice u/sec.153C or resorting to provisions of sec.148. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the Assessing Officer. For invoking the provisions of sec.263 of the Act, the twin conditions i.e., the assessment order must be erroneous and the order is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue must be satisfied as held in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd [ 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] - In the instant case, the order is certainly not erroneous, even though it may be prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, the twin conditions are not satisfied and the PCIT, in our opinion, cannot invoke the provisions of sec.263 - Decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 8,08,880/-. Thereafter, statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee, in response to which, the assessee filed requisite details from time to time. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.153C of the Act on 26.12.2021 accepting the returned income. 3.2. Subsequently, the learned PCIT on perusal of the assessment record noted that assessee is engaged in the business of land development and real estate broking and the main source of income of the assessee is commission receipts. Further the assessee has shown closing balance of unsecured loan taken from others of Rs. 62,17,000/- for the captioned year; whereas proceedings revealed that assessee has taken unsecured loan in cash through Shri Sachin Nahar of Rs. 1,56,00,000/- against which he had paid interest of Rs. 18,64,800/- in cash during the F.Y. 2016-2017 relevant to A.Y. 2017-2018. Therefore, the assessee has not correctly declared all the particulars of his income. By accepting cash loan of Rs. 1,56,00,000/- the assessee had violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Further, the source of interest paid in cash of Rs. 18,64,800/- was also no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r A.Y. 2017-18 appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 06. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the assessment order passed u/s. 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Act in the case of Shri Rajendra Ramesh Gugale for A.Y. 2017-18 prima facie appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue in terms of the provisions of Explanation-(2)(a) to Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act. I, therefore, intend to set aside/modify the assessment order within the meaning of section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. An opportunity of being heard is therefore, given to you. You are requested to attend in person or through your authorized representative оn 02.02.2024 at 03:30 PM in my office. 07. If you have authorized any representative to attend on your behalf, please ensure that the Power of Attorney with proper court fee stamp is filed on or before the date of hearing. If you do not wish to attend in person or through your authorized representative, you may file written submission along with necessary evidence in support of your contention before the due date of hearing. Further, it may be noted that no adjournmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Devi Saraogi v CIT 67 ITR 84 while taking note of the fact that the AO had concluded the assessment in undue hurry by passing a short, stereotyped assessment order, without making any inquiries, upheld the revision done by the CIT. In the case of Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO dated 29.11.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the law as laid down by the High Courts in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT 155 ITD 171 (Kol), Rajmandir Estates 386 ITR 162 (Cal) etc. and held that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 on the ground that the AO did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned. In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (2000) 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)/(2000) 159 CTR 1 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where Assessing Officer had accepted entry in statement of account filed by assessee, in absence of any supporting material without making any enquiry, exercise of jurisdiction by Commissioner under section 263 was justified. In the case of Vedanta Ltd. Vs CIT [2021/124 taxmann.com 435(Bombay)/[2021] 279 Taxman 358 (Bom) it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. 341 ITR 293 dated 04.01.2012 has held that section 263 is a section which enables the Commissioner to have a look at the orders or proceedings of the lower authorities and to effect a correction, if so needed, particularly if the order or proceeding is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It is also held that the Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case, ITO should have made further inquiries before accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return. Hon ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Ramesh Kumar, ITA.No.1982/Del/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 order dated 25.01.2019 has observed as under - On going through the facts, it can be observed that the Assessing Officer has not conducted any enquiry and this is a clear case of lack of enquiry not a case of inadequate enquiry. Further non application of mind by the Assessing Officer can be easily gauzed from the fact that the information available with the Assessing Officer has not been utilised during the assessment proceedings which makes the case fit for applying the provisions of explanation 2 (a) of section 263. Hon ble D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law, 1) The appellant requests for condonation of delay of 133 days in filing of the appeal since there was reasonable cause on his part in not filing the appeal within prescribed time limit. 2) The Ld. Pr. CIT erred holding that the assessment order passed u/s. 153C r.w.s.143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thereby erred in setting aside the assessment order for fresh verification to the file of the ld. A.O. 3) The learned Pr.CIT failed to appreciate that the assessment order under section 153C r.w.s.143(3) was passed by the learned Assessing Officer after taking approval of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and hence, he had no power to revise the said assessment order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 4) The ld. Pr.CIT erred in holding that the Id. A.O. had failed to verify the issue regarding unsecured loan taken in cash through Shri Sachin Nahar and the payment of interest thereon and hence, the assessment order passed was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5) The ld. Pr.CIT failed to appreciate that the appellant had not taken any loan in cash through Shri Sachin Nahar and had not paid any interest thereon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there is no evidence or material belonging or pertaining to the assessee were found, the Assessing Officer could not have made any addition in the hands of the assessee. Further the addition, if any, could have been made either by issuing notice u/sec.153C(1) or resorting to the provisions of sec.148. Therefore, once there is no satisfaction recorded in the case of Shri Sachin Nahar that certain entries or documents belong to the assessee, the Assessing Officer could not have made any addition merely on the basis of an email dated 19.03.2021. 6.1. Referring to the decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sree Lakshmi Venkateshwara Minerals vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore reported in [2021] 123 taxmann.com 255 (Bangalore-Trib.); Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that where assessment proceedings had already been completed prior to date of search under section 132, scope of making assessment under section 153C would be limited only to undisclosed income of assessee detected during search of some other person. 6.2. Referring to the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Suni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC); 2. Vedanta Ltd., vs. CIT [2021] 124 taxmann.com 435 (Bom.) (HC); 3. Ashok Leyland Ltd., vs. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 599 (Madras) (HC); 4. Nagal Garment Industries (P.) Ltd., vs. CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 4 (Madhya Pradesh) (HC); 5. Pr.CIT vs. Shri Braham Dev Gupta AIRONLINE 2018 DEL 1529 (HC); 6. Ankush Garg, Rohtak vs. CIT, Rohtak Order of ITAT, Delhi B Bench, New Delhi ITA.No.2287 2288/Del./2015, Order dated 21.05.2019. 8. We have heard the rival submissions made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case, on the basis of the information obtained that certain documents pertaining to the assessee were found from the premises of Yuvraj Dhamale Group of cases during the course of search on 26.09.2017, issued notice u/sec.153C on the basis of satisfaction note dated 01.03.2021. The assessee in response to the same filed his return of income disclosing total income of Rs. 8,08,880/- which was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/sec.143(3)/153C of the Act on 26.12.2021. We find the learned PCIT invoked the provisions of sec.263 of the Act on the ground that assessee had tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (PAN: ABFPG6929E) for AY 2017-18 in ITA No.1676/PUN/2024-reg. Ref:- Your office e-mail dated 18/10/2024 (03:23 PM) *** Kindly refer to the above. 02. Vide the above referred e-mail dated 18/10/2024, it is directed to send the assessment record in the above mentioned case to clarify whether any penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act has been initiated for the contravention of section 269SS of the Act in respect of unsecured cash loan received by the assessee. 03. In this regard, the assessment records in the above mentioned case is enclosed herewith (2 Volumes, Vol-1 36 Pages Vol-11-70 Pages). 04. The brief fact of the case is that the assessment proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act for A.Yrs. 2012-13 to 2018-19 were initiated on the basis of information contained in the incriminating material seized during the search action u/s. 132 of the Act conducted on 26/09/2017 in Yuvaraj Dhamale group of cases. The said proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act for A.Y.2017-18 was completed on 26/12/2021 by accepting the returned income of the assessee. Further, information of cash loan of Rs. 1,56,00,000/-received by the assessee along with interest payment of Rs. 18,64,800/- made by the assessee, ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding as under : PROFORMA FOR RECORDING SATISFACTION UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. (To be filled by the Assessing Officer of the person referred to in section 153A) 1. Name of the group searched Yuvraj Dhamale Group 2. Name and PAN of the person referred to in Section 153A 1) Shri Yuvraj Sitaram Dhamale Plot no 24, Sameer cooperative Housing society, Dhankovwadi Pune 411043 (PAN AHKPD2553) 2) M/s Wellbuild Merchants Pvt Ltd. 5 No 63, Rajgruhi residency, Kondha Budruk, Pune 411048 (PAN AAACW6566C) 3. Date of initiation of search in the case of the person referred to in Section 153A 26/09/2017 and subsequent dates. 4. Name, address and PAN of the person in whose case action under section 153C is proposed. Shri Rajendra Ramesh Gugale (Prop of M/s R R Developers) Address: 685/3, Kothari colony, B-12. Bibvewadi, Pune 37 PAN : ABFPG6929E 5. -- -- 6. -- -- 7. -- -- 8. Assessment Years involved. Different Assessment Years . Hence, in view of the provision of section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 it is necessary to initiate proceedings u/s. 153C r.w.s.153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Yrs 2012-13 to A.Y. 2018-19. Date : 01/03/2021 Sd/-(Swapnil Sharadrao Patil) Plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned therein relates to the assessee. Therefore, no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee without resorting to the provisions of either sec.147/148 or sec.153C of the Act. 8.9. Once the assessment framed u/sec.153C r.w.s.143(3) dated 26.12.2021 is held to be void being not in accordance with law on account of a combined satisfaction note for assessment years 2012-2013 to 2018-2019 instead of separate satisfaction note, no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the email dated 19.03.2021 without issuing a separate notice u/sec.153C or resorting to provisions of sec.148. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the Assessing Officer. 8.10. It is the settled proposition of law that for invoking the provisions of sec.263 of the Act, the twin conditions i.e., the assessment order must be erroneous and the order is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue must be satisfied as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., vs. CIT (supra). In the instant case, the order is certainly not erroneous, even though it may be prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, the twin conditions are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
