Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 600 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - non application of mind by AO on search figures of income - PCIT stated that assessing officer has not applied his mind and he accepted the figure explained by the assessee during survey proceedings, therefore order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue - HELD THAT:- Assessee has explained the survey team about the meaning of brief amount recorded in the diary, say for example 400 L means 4 lacs and 200 L means 2 lacs. The said cited interpretation has been accepted by the survey team. AO also gone through these answers and questions and applied his mind while passing the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act dated 20.12.2016. Since the Assessing Officer has taken into account, the survey material and the question and answers asked during the survey proceedings and explanations of the assessee and thus made adequate inquiry and then after he has passed the order under section 143(3) of the Act dated 20.12.2016, therefore order passed for AO should not be erroneous. The Learned Counsel also submitted before us an affidavit which is placed at page no.53 of the paper book wherein assessee has mentioned the additional income and stated that he had declared additional income for the current financial year. PCIT has not brought any material to justify the alleged income of ₹ 210 crores.Thus, we note that allegation made by the ld PCIT is based merely on suspicion and conjecture. A mere observation that no proper details have been obtained, cannot be sufficient to come to a conclusion that the assessing officer did not make proper and adequate inquiries which he ought to have made in the given facts and circumstances of this case. AO has examined other issues raised by ld PCIT, such as returned income, the pre-survey period and post -survey expenses and sundry creditors for land development and land leveling expenses. In the conclusion, we are of the view that none of the reasons set out by the ld PCIT for invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act are sustainable. The impugned order of ld PCIT has to be quashed for the reason that order of the assessing officer sought to be revised in the impugned order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the reason of any lack of inquiry that the assessing officer ought to have made in the given facts and circumstances of the case. We accordingly quash the order under section 263 of the Act and allow the appeal of the assessee.
|