Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1058 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Understatement of interest income - CIT on perusal of records found that the interest income is under-reported by the assessee to the above extent as detected from the corresponding AIR information available to the Department - HELD THAT:- TDS amount was deducted on the higher figure and also claimed by the assessee in the return of income the assessee has reported interest income lower to above extent. In these facts, the Pr.CIT has invoked the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and has set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. In our view, the action of the Pr.CIT cannot be condemned as without jurisdiction. Pr.CIT has sufficient basis to presume error in the assessment order in the absence of any inquiry in this regard by the Assessing Officer. While the assessee has attempted to justify its case that the impugned interest income has not accrued to it at all and is not in existence, this aspect requires objective verification which was not done by the Assessing Officer. While the assessee may possibly explain its stance with factual corroboration in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer arising from revisional proceedings, the action of the Pr. CIT cannot be faulted per se. We thus are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Pr.CIT. Hence, this ground in the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Initiation of penalty proceedings from Section 271AAB to Section 271(1)(c) - Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Addl. CIT vs. JK D’Costa [1981 (4) TMI 68 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has observed that failure of the Assessing Officer in recording satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings cannot be said to be a factor for vitiating the assessment order or making it erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The revisional Commissioner is thus not vested with power to rectify/modify such alleged errors in the revisional jurisdiction. Similar view has been expressed in Sunila Asasthi [2021 (7) TMI 299 - ITAT DELHI] and Amarjeet Dhall [2014 (4) TMI 1170 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] by placing reliance on series of decisions rendered in this regard. The plea of the assessee is thus found to be consistent with binding judicial precedents. In view of the Jurisdictional High Court expressing its view in favour of the assessee, we do not deem it necessary to refer to the judgment delivered in the case of Surendra Prasad Agrawal (2004 (9) TMI 45 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT) relied upon by Revenue. Action of the Pr. CIT directing the Assessing Officer to modify the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) instead of 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act is set aside. The ground pertaining to the aforesaid issue is thus allowed.
|