Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 1111 - AT - Income TaxValidity of Revision u/s 263 - assessee had failed to prove genuineness and creditworthiness of all these heads of expenses and credits - revision proceedings have been initiated on the basis of audit party - HELD THAT:- We find no force in assessee’s instant first and foremost legal argument as there is no such embargo in section 263 regarding exercise of revision jurisdiction on the basis of any proposal coming from the field authorities. We further note that there is no indication either in the PCIT’s section 263 twin show cause notices or in his detailed discussion that he had simply accepted the proposal than applying his independent mind on the facts and circumstances of the case. Once there is no statutory restriction placed in exercise of section 263 jurisdiction at the prescribed authorities’ instance, we must adopt stricter construction going by Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar & Co [2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT] to interpret the impugned jurisdiction in wide terms only. The assessee fails in his instant first and foremost argument. We find from the perusal of case files that the learned counsel could not place any material before us during the course of arguments that the Assessing Officer had carried out all his details enquiries whilst disallowing/adding the relevant heads of expenses and credits (supra) in part than in entirety once it was a fit case wherein he had already held this taxpayer to have failed in proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness by way of filing cogent evidence. Assessment framed without carrying out detailed enquiries and verifications is indeed an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue which duly entitles the prescribed authority to assume its section and pass necessary orders thereupon as it thinks fit. We thus uphold the PCIT’s revision directions herein in the given facts and circumstances of the case. We find no merit in the assessee’s instant last argument as well in light of hon’ble apex court’s decision in CIT vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. [1996 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] that the above exclusion clause regarding prescribed authority exercising section 263 revision jurisdiction does extends to “such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal”. We make it clear that there is no material before us which could indicate the CIT(A) to have considered and decided the assessee’s grievance to this extent. We thus reject the assessee’s instant argument as well. PCIT has wrongly directed the Assessing Officer to finalise proceedings u/s 144 only whilst passing his consequential order - We find no substance in the assessee’s instant concluding arguments as well once it has come on record that the Assessing Officer had himself decided all these corresponding issues after holding that the assessee had failed to prove genuineness and creditworthiness of all these heads of expenses and credits; as the case may be, by filing cogent supportive evidence. We therefore hold that there is no prejudice caused to the assessee in light of PCIT’s directions to the Assessing Officer u/s 144. The assessee fails in all her arguments thereof. The PCIT’s revision order under challenge is upheld. Decided against assessee.
|