Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 25 - ITAT CHENNAIRevision u/s 263 - CIT revised the assessment order passed by the AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153B on the ground that assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous insofar as, it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue on the issue of loan liability shown by the assessee in the name of Mr. P.Udhayashankar for the year ending 31.03.2015 - HELD THAT:- We find that during the course of assessment, neither the assessee furnished necessary explanation with regard to loan liability in the name of Mr. P.Udhayashankar, nor the AO has examined the issue in light of relevant provisions of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that assessment order passed by the AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153B of the Act, is erroneous insofar as, it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. As regards claim of the assessee that CIT ought not to have revised assessment order on the basis of statement of facts filed before the Income-tax Settlement Commission and confession statement of Mr. P. Udhayashankar, we find that purported lender categorically denied of having any loan transactions with the assessee. Moreover, facts brought out by the CIT clearly shows that Mr. P. Udhayashankar has not admitted loan transactions of the assessee in the application filed before the Income-tax Settlement Commission. Even before the High Court in the Writ Petition, the Hon'ble High Court noticed that the petitioner could not able to establish that he approached the settlement commission with clean hands and element of true and full disclosures as contemplated u/s.245C had not been established. Purported loan transaction of the assessee with Mr. P.Udhayashankar is not explained. AO neither examined the issue nor called for any explanation from the assessee. Therefore, there is no error in the reasons given by the CIT to hold that assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer as erroneous insofar as, it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Hence, we are inclined to uphold order passed by the learned CIT u/s.263 and dismiss appeal filed by the assessee.
|