| The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 2473 (Kol-Trib) : (2021) 190 ITD 0795 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263
AO had followed directions of Pr. CIT, issued in his first Order, passed under section 263 as regards loan amount received by assessee and had taken a plausible view. It was not a case of lack of enquiry, nor a case of inadequate enquiry. A decision was taken after examination of all evidences and documents. Such a view could not be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, order passed under section 263 was set aside.
|
Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial order - Total income determined by AO in the second round of assessment proceedings, being less than income determined in first assessment proceedings - No lack of enquiry on AO's part
AO passed assessment order under section 143(3) determining total income of assessee at Rs. 2,16,73,630 inter alia making an addition of Rs. 2,16,23,328 under section 68 towards unexplained cash credits being share application money and share premium received by assessee. Pr. CIT passed order under section 263, setting aside the original assessment order passed under section 143(3) and directing AO to redo the assessment de novo with certain directions to carry out proper examination of books of account and bank accounts of assessee as well as investors. AO was also directed to examine the source of share application money, identity of investors and genuineness of transactions as also the issue of purchase and sale of seeds. Consequently, AO after completing assessment proceedings for the second time passed an order under section 143(3) read with section 263, determining the total income of assessee at Rs. 50,300. Pr. CIT treated order passed by AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Held: Persons representing share applicant companies appeared before AO in the second round of assessment proceedings, in response to notice under section 131, and their statements were recorded on oath. The share applicant companies had also responded to notice under section 133(6) by furnishing the information called for. The information filed by share applicant companies was as follows :-- Copy of I.T. Return/Acknowledgment, Copy of annual audited accounts, Balance sheet and profit and loss a/c statement, Copy of Bank Statement. These documents prove genuineness of transactions. A perusal of these documents showed that AO had followed directions of Pr. CIT, issued in his first Order, passed under section 263 and had taken a plausible view. It was not a case of lack of enquiry, nor a case of inadequate enquiry. A decision was taken after examination of all evidences and documents. Such a view could not be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, order passed under section 263 was set aside.
Applied:Omkar Infracon (P) Ltd. v. ITO in ITA No. 896/Kol/2019, Assessment Year 2012-13, Order, dt. 18-3-2020 : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 2038 (Kol-Trib) and Amritrashi Infra Private Ltd. v. Pr. CIT ITA No. 838/Kol/2019; Assessment Year 2012-13 Order, dt. 12-8-2020 : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 3145 (Kol-Trib). Relied:Spectra Shares and Scris (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2013) 354 ITR 35 (AP) : 2013 Taxub(DT) 1603 (AP-HC), Director of Income Tax v. Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del-HC) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2463 (Del-HC), ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del-HC) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 1727 (Del-HC), CIT v. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 593 (Cal-HC) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 2646 (Cal-HC) and CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills (2008) 296 ITR 238 (P&H HC) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 0333 (P&H-HC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2012-13
IN THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|