The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 6034 (Sur-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 263

Pr. CIT had not made a case that there was 'no enquiry' or 'lack of inquiry' rather recorded that AO called detailed inquiry. Pr. CIT had not specified that what kind of further inquiry was required, when the income disclosed in IDS was duly accepted by higher authority and acceptance of IDS was never questioned by Board or other superior authority. So far as non-initiation of penalty under section 271D/271E was concerned. Pr. CIT could not exercise his jurisdiction under section 263 for the purpose of initiation of penalty proceedings. Accordingly, assessment order could not be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial order - No lack of enquiry on AO's part -

Pr. CIT treated order passed by AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interet of revenue on the ground of non-verification of cash payment for purchase of land Non-verification of cash expenses incurred on consolidation and conversion of land and genuineness of cash loan (in all three assessment years), Non-initiation of penalty under sections 271B and 271D, etc., Pr. CIT could not exercise his jurisdiction under section 263 for the purpose of initiation of penalty proceedings. Held: A perusal of show cause notice under section 263, clearly demonstrated that Pr. CIT identified all the issues which were the subject matter of notice under section 142(1) and the questionnaire attached thereto, issued by AO Pr. CIT in his show cause notice under section 263 accepted that AO made detailed questionnaire, and on perusal record and details/evidences available on record, Pr. CIT noted that AO had not made further inquiry. Thus, Pr. CIT had not made a case that there was 'no enquiry' or 'lack of inquiry' rather recorded that AO called detailed inquiry. Pr. CIT had not specified that what kind of further inquiry was required, when the income disclosed in IDS was duly accepted by higher authority and acceptance of IDS was never questioned by Board or other superior authority. So far as non-initiation of penalty under section 271D/271E was concerned. Pr. CIT could not exercise his jurisdiction under section 263 for the purpose of initiation of penalty proceedings. Accordingly, assessment order could not be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

Relied:Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) : 2000 TaxPub(DT) 1227 (SC), CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 71 Taxman 585 (Bom-HC) : (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom-HC) : 1993 TaxPub(DT) 1357 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 5021 (Guj HC) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 342 (Guj-HC), Aryan Arcade Ltd., v. Pr. CIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Guj-HC) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 5827 (Guj-HC) and CIT v. Suresh G. Shah (2007) 289 ITR 110 (Guj) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 529 (Guj-HC) and CIT v. Parmanand M. Patel (2005) 287 ITR 3 (Guj) : 2005 TaxPub(DT) 1717 (Guj-HC).

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2014-15 to 2015-16



IN THE ITAT, SURAT BENCH

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

TaxPublishers.in

'Kedarnath', 7, Avadh Vihar, Near Nirali Dhani,

Chopasni Road

Jodhpur - 342 008 (Rajasthan) INDIA

Phones : 9785602619 (11 am - 5 pm)

E-Mail : mail@taxpublishers.in / mail.taxpublishers@gmail.com