| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 8320 (Sur-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263
AO had accepted investment in land after considering explanation filed by the assessee and on the basis of the finding of seized materials during search proceedings. The action of search is highest kind of inquiry undertaken by revenue and on the basis of the evidence of search assessment was made. So it was not the case of no inquiry by AO. Even it was not the case of inadequate inquiry too as AO made due inquiry by considering seized materials and explanation of assessee, therefore, exercise of jurisdiciton under section 263 was not correct, merely just because view taken by AO was not found acceptable to Pr. CIT.
|
Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial order - Allegation of inadequate enquiry by AO as regards material seized during search -
Pr. CIT held order passed by AO under section 143(3)/153A as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground that expenses incurred by assessee for purchase and development of land had not been adequately enquired by AO.Held: It could be appreciated that AO had accepted investment in land after considering explanation filed by assessee and on the basis of materials seized during search proceedings. The action of search highest kind of inquiry undertaken by revenue and on the basis of evidence of search, assessment was made. So, it was not the case of no inquiry or lack of inquiry by AO. Even it was not the case of inadequate inquiry as AO made due inquiry by considering seized materials and explanation of assessee. Merely just because view taken by AO was not found acceptable to Pr.CIT, it did not mean that AO had failed to make requisite enquiries. Therefore, exercise of jurisdiciton under section 263 was not correct.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2009-10
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|