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 384 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - unaccounted sales/purchases - assessee's case had earlier been reopened on the same issue u/s. 148 - as per CIT AO had failed to examine the dispute between the assessee and NESL and had also not examined the issue on merits so as to logically conclude the re-assessment - HELD THAT:- From the assessment order passed u/s. 147/143 (3) in the office note AO has mentioned that a letter u/s. 133(6) of the Act had been issued on 20.12.2018 which was duly served through email to NSEL, Mumbai calling information i.e. copy of trading account along with copy of the letter in which the assessee allegedly admitted to pay the outstanding liability - subsequent reminders are also issued to the NSEL but no compliance had been made by the NSEL. It is also stated in the office note that, therefore, in the absence of any evidence regarding this information, no adverse inference was called for and the Assessing officer noted that, further, if any information will be received, subsequently, suitable action u/s. 148/263 of the Act may be considered. Thus, at the time of completion of re-assessment proceedings on 29.12.2018 (undisputedly, the reassessment was getting time barred on 31.12.2018), the Assessing officer, after duly considering the explanation offered by the assessee and the documents furnished in this regard, arrived at one of the possible views which could be taken in the present case. It is our considered opinion that the Assessing officer, after duly calling for required information and after duly considering the explanations and evidences before him, reached a conclusion which was a possible view to be taken by him and he cannot be faulted for not having waited for a response from NSEL which was not forthcoming even after two reminders. AO took a view which was legally plausible and possible at that point of time. Subsequent information could be a basis for initiating new re-assessment proceedings but not the basis for a revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Ld. PCIT is without any justification. As far as the alternate plea of the assessee challenging the re-assessment proceedings is concerned, we are not inclined to go into the same as we have already held the proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act to be bad in law. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act and allow the appeal of the assessee.
|