| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1111 (Del-Trib) : (2020) 078 ITR (Trib) 0340 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263
When amount in question was included in total receipt of assessee trust and had been assessed by AO, as such during original assessment stage after examining the same, there was no question of holding that it was an unaccounted income of assessee or that AO failed to make enquiry on the same. If CIT(E) wanted to take a different view, then he should have made a detailed enquiry at revision stage and should have come to finding as to how assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue. However, CIT(E) merely mentioned that since issue had not been enquired into by AO, therefore, Explanation-2 to section 263 would apply against assessee. Further, assessee had explained the issue during original assessment stage as well as before CIT(E) in proceeding under section 263. Therefore, it was not fit case of invocation of jurisdiction under section 263.
|
Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial order - CIT(E) alleging no proper verification made by AO as regareds cash deposit in assessee's bank account -
CIT(E) invoked jurisdiction under section 263 and held order passed by AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground of AO not having verified properly cash deposit Rs. 6 crores in assessee's bank account which as per CIT(E) was undisclosed income of assessee. Held: As regards impugned cash deposit of Rs. 6 crores in Bank Account of assessee, the assessee produced complete details before AO to explain that total receipts of assessee under different heads i.e., academic fees, building development fund and other development funds amounted to Rs. 16 crores. The same reply was filed before AO as well as before CIT(E) that Rs. 6 crores was the part of total receipts of assessee of Rs. 16 crores. Assessee received academic fees of Rs. 15 crores which included the impugned amount. Assessee produced complete list of the students who had made deposit directly with bank and fees received by School. Therefore, when amount in question was included in total receipt of assessee trust and had been assessed by AO, as such during original assessment stage after examining the same, there was no question of holding that it was an unaccounted income of assessee or that AO failed to make enquiry on the same. If CIT(E) wanted to take a different view, then he should have made a detailed enquiry at revision stage and should have come to finding as to how assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue. However, CIT(E) merely mentioned that since issue had not been enquired into by AO, therefore, Explanation-2 to section 263 would apply against assessee. Further, assessee had explained the issue during original assessment stage as well as before CIT(E) in proceeding under section 263. Therefore, it was not fit case of invocation of jurisdiction under section 263.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2014-2015
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|