Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Pr.CIT has ignored the replies of the ...

Pr.CIT Ignored Assessee's Responses, Failed to Explain Disagreement, and Returned Case Without Independent Inquiry.

October 28, 2022

Case Laws Income Tax AT

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Pr.CIT has ignored the replies of the assessee and he has not discussed as to why he does not agree with the contentions of the assessee. The Ld. Pr.CIT has merely remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer without making any inquiry himself. It is apparent that no independent inquiries have been made by the Ld. Pr.CIT although it was incumbent upon him to make such inquiry so as to reach the conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Pr.CIT has ignored the replies of the ...

Pr.CIT Ignored Assessee's Responses, Failed to Explain Disagreement, and Returned Case Without Independent Inquiry.

October 28, 2022

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

Section 80P deduction claim filed in a return submitted in response to notice u/s 142(1) is valid. The Income Tax Act does not mandate that the return must be filed u/ss...

Non-filer assessee had taxable income but failed to file return u/s 139(1), later filed return in response to notice u/s 148 without considering section 50C provisions,...

Assessment completed u/s 144 - defective return - Return filed in response to the notice issued u/s 153A it has been stated that the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal considered whether an assessee can claim deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the first time in the return...

AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as assessee failed to file return u/s 139 or in response to notice u/s 148, despite receiving substantial contract receipts of Rs. 2.5...

Validity of assessment u/s 147 - it is not a return u/s 119(2)(b) albeit it is a return filed in response to notice u/s 148 which has been accepted by the AO. Thus, when...

The assessee's unexplained cash credits u/s 68 were deleted by the CIT(A) after accepting the submissions that the cash receipts from various sources like cash sales,...

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income was challenged. The Assessing Officer (AO) alleged that the assessee understated turnover and concealed income...

Assessee failed to file return of income u/s 139 but received notice u/s 148. Despite opting for presumptive taxation scheme u/s 44AD, which does not require maintaining...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee filed return of income in response to notice u/s 148 - No difference between returned income and assessed income - Assessee voluntarily...

The case pertains to the levy of interest u/s 234C for failure on the part of the payer to deduct tax deducted at source (TDS) u/ss 196D and 194LD. The key points are:...

Levy Penalty - even in response to notices issued by the AO for the second time u/s 17, the assessee did not disclose the value of motor cars by filing fresh returns of...

The assessee made investments in two firms by purchasing cold storage units funded by M/s. A.R. Constructions, where the assessee is a managing partner. The source for...

The assessee, a works contractor, filed a return in compliance with Section 153A notice and claimed deduction u/s 80IA, which was not claimed in the original return...

The High Court rejected the condonation of delay in filing income tax returns, as the returns were handled by a Chartered Accountant who could not take timely steps due...

Quick Updates: