Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 684 - ITAT PUNERevision u/s 263 - Incorrect source of the money showed as receipt from the sale of such fruits and vegetables - non-inquiry by AO -HELD THAT:- We find that though 7/12 extracts was before the A.O where the assessee has shown having received income from sale of watermelon, vegetables, chana but the reality was there was no cultivation of these crops in the said 7/12 extracts submitted by the assessee. This fact was only brought out by the ld. Pr. CIT in his inquiry. The non-inquiry in this case by the A.O has resulted the order to be erroneous so as to be prejudicial to the interests of revenue since the source of the money showed as receipt from the sale of such fruits and vegetables has clearly turned out to be incorrect and the source of such money is still to be ascertained in the given facts and circumstances of this case, meaning thereby the tax which was lawfully excisable has not been imposed or that by application of the relevant statutes on an incorrect and incomplete interpretation a lesser tax than what was just has been imposed. The order becomes erroneous simply because such an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. In the said judgment, Hon”ble Delhi High Court has referred to earlier decisions of the Hon”ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi [1967 (5) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] and Tara Devi Aggrawal [1972 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been held that where the A.O has accepted a particular contention/issue without any inquiry or evidence whatsoever, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The aforesaid observation has to be understood in the light of the present case, where the A.O has not conducted any inquiry or examined the said 7/12 extracts which were in front of him. Therefore, this case has to be seen differently from the case where the A.O has conducted inquiry but the findings were erroneous. In the present facts it”s a case of lack of inquiry by the A.O and not inadequate inquiry. CIT was justified in assuming revisionary jurisdiction and passing an order u/s 263 of the Act which is hereby upheld. - Decided against assessee.
|