Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 601 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - claim of deduction u/s. 54F - HELD THAT:- PCIT at best can be said to have entertained a suspicion, however, he has failed to point out any infirmity in the order. On the contrary, considering the replies of the assessee on record including the submissions as advanced before the ld. PCIT himself, we find that the claim allowed by the AO is fully supported on facts and evidences. The order under challenge fails to point out any error let alone such an error which can be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The fact that the construction cost details were actually provided on query to the AO or not as they do not find any mention in the assessment order, we find in the peculiar facts is neither here nor there. The fact remains that these were provided to the ld. PCIT. We do not need to cite any decisions to address the well accepted position that the assessee cannot be faulted on how the assessment orders are written. The writing of assessment orders are exclusively in the hands and the domain of the Revenue and merely because facts on which the AO is satisfied are not found mentioned in the order, the absence of discussion thereon shall not by itself be an indicator of the fact that the AO has failed to examine the issue. Such an inference cannot be drawn. We have seen the queries raised in the course of the assessment proceedings. We have seen the responses given thereto. No doubt that the assessee is faced with a handicap that the counsel representing before the AO and before the ld. PCIT has passed away in the COVID times, however, the fact which remains to be demonstrated by the Revenue is the error and that too such an error which is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. These requirements cannot be said to have been met by the absence of discussion on facts on which the AO was satisfied after having raised the queries and considered the replies. How the assessment orders are to be written cannot be dictated to by the assessee. The remedy at best lies in providing better training, if so deemed fit to the Revenue officers and hence, lies in-house with the Revenue itself. The suspicion that it was possibly not seen by the AO cannot be the backbone of exercising the powers u/s. 263 of the Act. The fact remains that these calculations were provided to the ld. PCIT. It is seen that he has failed to find any infirmity in the claim. PCIT, instead has set aside the order u/s. 143(3)/148 in order to grant one more inning to the Revenue to find some shortcoming in the claim on the suspicion that possibly the AO has missed something in the first round. Such an action cannot be supported. Powers u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act are not on the Statute for such whimsical and arbitrary actions. The powers are expected to be necessarily exercised by pointing out clearly the error in the order passed which is sought to be set aside exercising the Revisionary powers and that too, such an error which is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Appeal of assessee allowed.
|