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 1378 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - assessee has made investments in two properties in the year under consideration and source of the same was explained from the withdrawal of the partnership firm however, the AO has not cross verified from the accounts of the partnership firm, assessee has received unsecured loan from several parties which were accepted by the AO in the assessment proceedings without examining the genuineness of the loan as well as creditworthiness of the parties and there was a gift from the father of the assessee and payment towards the stamp duty, registration charges but the same were not examined by the AO during the assessment proceedings - HELD THAT:- The principle which emerges is that the phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when an AO adopts one of the course permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law, or the AO has completely omitted to make any enquiry altogether or the order demonstrates non-application of mind. Now in the facts before us, the case of the assessee was selected through "CASS" selection for Scrutiny, where the purpose of assessment was to scrutinize the substantial investment in the property in the captioned year. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO made detailed enquiries on this issue and after consideration of time-to-time written submissions filed by the assessee and documents/evidence placed on record, the Ld. AO framed assessment under section 143(3) after making additions to the tune of ₹ 8,085/- representing interest income. CIT initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the AO has not made enquiries or verification which should have been made in respect of sources of investment in property, unsecured loan, gift from assessee's father and stamp duty charges. It is not the case of the Pr. CIT that the Ld. AO did not apply his mind to the issue on hand or he had omitted to make enquiries altogether. In the instant set of facts, the Ld. AO had made detailed enquiries and after consideration of material placed on record accepted the genuineness of the investment, unsecured loan and gift from father except the payment of the stamp duty which needs to be verified. We thus find no error in the order of Ld. AO so as to justify initiation of 263 proceedings by the Ld. Pr. CIT except the payment of the stamp duty which needs to be verified. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee is thus partly allowed.
|