Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1189 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - valid assumption of jurisdiction - revision being invalid as the notice u/s. 263 was issued in the name of a deceased person - HELD THAT:- Section 159, it explains, does not bear upon the jurisdiction of the taxing authority, but deals with matters incidental to it. The decision in Sumantbhai C. Munshaw (Decd.), [1980 (7) TMI 68 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]a treatise on the subject, is, thus, consistent with the binding decisions in Kaushalyabai (1997 (3) TMI 20 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] and Premium Capital Markets & Investment Ltd. (2005 (1) TMI 54 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT) i.e., in principle. In Swaran Kanta v. CIT [1988 (11) TMI 91 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] the mention of the name of the deceased in the heading of the order, in proceedings, validly initiated, and concluded on the LR, whose is deemed by law (s.159) to be an assessee, was held as valid notwithstanding that the title of the order was not happily worded, which though would not make it invalid for that reason and, besides, is saved by s. 292B. The foregoing explains our decision in non-acceptance of the assessee’s case. We may, before parting, also advert to the decision in Guduthur Brothers v. ITO [1960 (7) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT]wherein the Apex Court per it’s larger Bench decision explained that where a notice remained undisposed, it did not cease to be operative, and the AO had the jurisdiction to continue the proceedings from the stage where the illegality had occurred. Notice u/s. 143(2) was for limited scrutiny, i.e., qua cash deposited during demonetisation period it was not proper on the part of the revisionary authority to, in exercise of the revisionary power, question the absence of verification in assessment qua agricultural income, disclosed by the assessee - The objection is, to our mind, not maintainable, both on facts and in law. This is as agricultural income is surely one of the sources of cash deposited by the assessee, to verify which the return was selected for scrutiny. Two, that the assessee does not own any agricultural land is an admitted fact. It is only where the land is either owned or taken on rent (as per revenue record), that the income from agricultural activity could be said to be agricultural. The AO ought to have, therefore, exceeded his ambit to verify the veracity of the claims as to agricultural income, exempt u/s. 10, i.e., besides being in explanation of the source of the cash deposit. He having not done so, by seeking the approval of his range head, as enjoined upon him by the Board Circular, binding on him, the said authority was competent to, in exercise of his revisionary jurisdiction, require the AO to examine the same, setting aside the assessment for the purpose. On facts, we approve of the observations by the Pr. CIT being in respect of the infirmities observed by him qua the assessee’s explanation in respect of her claim for agricultural income of Rs. 7.01 lacs. The AO, who abysmally failed to do so in the original proceedings, shall question the assessee in the matter keeping the same in mind, though not limited thereto, and neither being bound thereby, inasmuch as it is an open set aside - That is, he shall decide per a speaking order, issuing definite findings of fact upon due enquiry/verification, observing the principles of natural justice. Revision in the instance case is, in our view, attracted under clauses (a), (b) & (c) of Explanation 2 to s. 263(1). We decide accordingly, declining interference. - Decided against assessee.
|