Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 1108 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - undisclosed total turnover/receipts - Held that:- AO passed the assessment order on 19.12.2007 u/s. 143(3) of the Act. He has gone through the survey report which was conducted at business premises of the assessee on 27.3.2006 and the basis for issuing notice u/s. 143(2) is the survey operation in the case of the assessee u/s. 133A of the Act. The AO categorically mentioned in para 4 of his order that during the course of survey Sri T. Srinivasa Rao, Managing Partner of the assessee stated that the total turnover/receipts for FYs 2004-05 and 2005-06 will be around ₹ 70 lakhs and also stated that for FY 2004-05 relevant to A.Y. 2005-06, the turnover/receipts are ₹ 20 lakhs and for FY 2005-06 relevant to A.Y. 2006-07, the turnover/receipts are ₹ 50 lakhs. It means that the AO had gone through the survey report and after that only he had completed the assessment. The AO being quasi-judicial authority, exercised the powers vested in him according to the law and arrived at a conclusion that the assessee has properly disclosed the receipts in its books of account and concluded that no addition is warranted towards undisclosed receipts and he made the addition of ₹ 1,08,091 towards the discrepancies in bills and vouchers produced by the assessee. The CIT u/s. 263 proceedings not satisfied with the addition made by the AO and he was of the opinion that the income offered by the assessee is to be brought to tax. In our considered opinion, the first requirement viz., that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous is absent in this case. In coming to the conclusion of the CIT u/s. 263 proceedings that ₹ 50 lakhs offered by the assessee has to brought to tax is not supported by any positive material and there is retraction by the assessee. Being so, in our opinion, the AO's order is to be upheld. The reason given by the CIT was that the retraction made by the assessee was delayed inordinately. In our opinion, though there is a delay in retraction by the assessee for going back from the offer made by the assessee, there is no material whatsoever to bring the additional income to tax. Thus we are inclined to annul the order passed by the CIT u/s. 263 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
|