Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1746 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Held that:- All the documents which were found during the search were not examined by Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings. This clearly shows that Ld. Commissioner came to the conclusion that assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue Assessing Officer is of the view that issue regarding section 40A(3) i.e. issue of cash payment and certain investments could not be examined because of the non-cooperation of the assessee. These are two different issues and cannot be linked. No doubt, the Assessing Officer has no power to review his own order but as discussed earlier he had definitely power to put up a proposal for revision and this position was admitted even by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Therefore, we find no force in these submissions. Assessing Officer has ultimately accepted the surrendered amount meaning thereby by that Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible view and, therefore, order cannot be called erroneous. The careful perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that Assessing Officer has not examined the various documents found during the search and has simply assessed the income at ₹ 8.5 crores which was surrendered amount. The Assessing Officer should have examined all the documents particularly because the assessee has not filed the return for surrendered amount of ₹ 8.5 crores. In fact, the assessee had returned only income of ₹ 3.37 crores. Therefore, Assessing Officer should have been more then careful and should have examined all the documents found during the search regarding purchase of properties and then determine income which has not been done. In any case, mere acceptance of the surrendered income without inquiry would make the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue None of the items pertain to surrendered income and, therefore, it cannot be said that a sum of ₹ 78,30,000/- was surrendered in the hands of Shri Suresh Khanna. The Ld. counsel was confronted with this variation and specific question was posed to him as to how he justified the figure of ₹ 78,30,000/- shown as surrendered income. He gave evasive reply and submitted that this would be part of income of six years, however, no document is available in this regard. Similar is the situation with Shri Rupinderdeep Singh and Shri Deepak Chauhan. As far as the case of Shri Harinder Singh is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed copy of the assessment order in case of Shri Harinder Singh vide letter dated 6.11.2013. The assessment order clearly shows that assessee had declared income from business. In this case the sum of ₹ 2,98,39,000/- has been added by way of addition and same did not form part of the returned income. Therefore, this is wrong to say that assessee has offered the surrendered income in various hands. Assessing Officer has not made proper enquiries and therefore, assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue which has been correctly revised by the Ld. Commissioner by passing an order u/s 263. - Decided against assessee
|