Antala Sanjay Kumar Ravjibhai v. CIT

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2012 TaxPub(DT) 0960 (Rkt-Trib) : (2012) 044 (II) ITCL 0511 : (2012) 135 ITD 0506 : (2012) 148 TTJ 0121 : (2012) 074 DTR 0228 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 --Revision under section 263--Erroneous and prejudicial orderPossible view taken by AO--Assessee had declared agricultural income of Rs. 4,05,000 in its return of income apart from other incomes such as income from salary, commission, share of profit, etc. aggregating to Rs. 1,53,012. AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) on 23-3-2006. In the original assessment assessing officer held that no genuine agricultural activity was carried out by assessee during the year. Therefore, the agricultural income disclosed by assessee was taken as income from undisclosed sources. CIT, on scrutiny of return found that in the original assessment, assessing officer ought to have assessed agricultural income as undisclosed income at Rs. 4,95,000 instead of Rs. 4,05,000. CIT was of the view that assessee had disclosed gross agricultural income of Rs. 4,95,000 and after claiming expenses of Rs. 90,000, the net agricultural income was Rs. 4,05,000. CIT therefore, directed assessing officer to enhance the assessment by taking gross agricultural income declared in the return of income, i.e. Rs. 4,95,000 instead of net agricultural income taken in the original assessment. While directing assessing officer, the CIT held that in the original assessment assessing officer had examined only the issue whether there was any agricultural activity or not. assessing officer failed to consider the correct amount of addition of agricultural income as to whether net agricultural income was to be added or the gross agricultural income was to be added. Held: In the original assessment assessing officer had examined the issues relating to agricultural income and found that there was no genuine agricultural activities carried out by assessee. In the original assessment assessing officer had treated agricultural income of Rs. 4,05,000 as undisclosed income instead of gross amount of Rs. 4,95,000. In the original assessment assessing officer had taken a particular view conscientiously after considering the facts of the case. Now CIT wanted to substitute his view with that of assessing officer which is totally a different view which is not permissible in law. Since the order of assessing officer was not erroneous, there is no hesitation in setting aside the order under section 263 passed by CIT. Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 263 IN THE ITAT RAJKOT BENCH D.K. TYAGI, J.M. & A.L. GEHLOT, A.M. Antala Sanjaykumar Ravjibhai v. CIT ITA No. 205 (Rjt.) of 2008 A.Y. 2003-04 21 November, 2011 Appellantby : J.C. Ranpura, Respondentby : Yogesh Pande, ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT-II, Rajkot dated 13-02-2008 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2003-04. 2. The following effective grounds are raised in the appeal: '(1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in law and in facts by adding Rs. 495000.00 being gross agricultural income as concealed income, as I have already shown the income in my Return of Income and there is nothing new the Income Tax Officer has found out. I had filed revision petition under section 264, after three hearing, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax advised me to withdraw the petition and go for appeal before the appellate Commissioner with the understanding that he will drop the proceeding under section 263. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2012 TaxPub(DT) 0960 (Rkt-Trib) : (2012) 044 (II) ITCL 0511 : (2012) 135 ITD 0506 : (2012) 148 TTJ 0121 : (2012) 074 DTR 0228

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Revision under section 263--Erroneous and prejudicial orderPossible view taken by AO--Assessee had declared agricultural income of Rs. 4,05,000 in its return of income apart from other incomes such as income from salary, commission, share of profit, etc. aggregating to Rs. 1,53,012. AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) on 23-3-2006. In the original assessment assessing officer held that no genuine agricultural activity was carried out by assessee during the year. Therefore, the agricultural income disclosed by assessee was taken as income from undisclosed sources. CIT, on scrutiny of return found that in the original assessment, assessing officer ought to have assessed agricultural income as undisclosed income at Rs. 4,95,000 instead of Rs. 4,05,000. CIT was of the view that assessee had disclosed gross agricultural income of Rs. 4,95,000 and after claiming expenses of Rs. 90,000, the net agricultural income was Rs. 4,05,000. CIT therefore, directed assessing officer to enhance the assessment by taking gross agricultural income declared in the return of income, i.e. Rs. 4,95,000 instead of net agricultural income taken in the original assessment. While directing assessing officer, the CIT held that in the original assessment assessing officer had examined only the issue whether there was any agricultural activity or not. assessing officer failed to consider the correct amount of addition of agricultural income as to whether net agricultural income was to be added or the gross agricultural income was to be added. Held: In the original assessment assessing officer had examined the issues relating to agricultural income and found that there was no genuine agricultural activities carried out by assessee. In the original assessment assessing officer had treated agricultural income of Rs. 4,05,000 as undisclosed income instead of gross amount of Rs. 4,95,000. In the original assessment assessing officer had taken a particular view conscientiously after considering the facts of the case. Now CIT wanted to substitute his view with that of assessing officer which is totally a different view which is not permissible in law. Since the order of assessing officer was not erroneous, there is no hesitation in setting aside the order under section 263 passed by CIT.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 263

IN THE ITAT RAJKOT BENCH

D.K. TYAGI, J.M. & A.L. GEHLOT, A.M.

Antala Sanjaykumar Ravjibhai v. CIT

ITA No. 205 (Rjt.) of 2008

A.Y. 2003-04

21 November, 2011

Appellantby : J.C. Ranpura,

Respondentby : Yogesh Pande,

ORDER

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT-II, Rajkot dated 13-02-2008 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2003-04.

2. The following effective grounds are raised in the appeal:

'(1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in law and in facts by adding Rs. 495000.00 being gross agricultural income as concealed income, as I have already shown the income in my Return of Income and there is nothing new the Income Tax Officer has found out. I had filed revision petition under section 264, after three hearing, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax advised me to withdraw the petition and go for appeal before the appellate Commissioner with the understanding that he will drop the proceeding under section 263.