Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 583 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - Unexplained cash deposits during demonetisation, low gross profit and net profit inspite of increased receipts compared to previous years, Service tax applicability for travel business and Sundry creditors - HELD THAT:- This is not a case where no enquiry has been made by the assessee officer during the course of assessment proceedings. It is also not the case of the Pr. CIT that the Ld. AO failed to apply his mind to the issues on hand or he had omitted to make enquiries altogether or had taken a view which was not legally plausible in the instant facts. As held by various Courts sec 263 of the Act does not visualise a case of substitution of the judgment of the Principal CIT for that of the AO, who passed the order unless the decision is held to be wholly erroneous. As noted in various judicial precedents highlighted above, the Principal CIT, on perusal of the records, may be of the opinion that the estimate made by the officer concerned was on the lower side and left to the Commissioner he would have estimated the income at a figure higher than the one determined by the Income-tax Officer. That would not vest the Commissioner with power to re-visit the entire assessment and determine the income himself at a higher figure. Now on the issue that the Ld. AO passed a cryptic order and did not discuss in detail regarding assessee’s submissions on various queries raised vide the various notices, in our view it is a well settled position of law that if from the assessment records, it is evident that the AO has made due enquiries in response to which assessee has filed its submissions, then even if the assessment order does not discuss all aspects in detail with regards to claim of the assessee, it cannot be held that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The above proposition has been upheld in the case of CIT v. Reliance Communication [2016 (4) TMI 173 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], Smt. Anupama Bharat Gupta [2021 (4) TMI 1000 - ITAT AHMEDABAD], Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [1987 (10) TMI 43 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], CIT v. Mahendra Kumar Bansal [2007 (7) TMI 149 - HIGH COURT, ALLAHABAD]. We thus find no error in the order of Ld. AO so as to justify initiation of 263 proceedings by the Ld. Pr. CIT. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus allowed.
|