Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 150 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - short levy of income under the head “income from house property” - case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny “details of assets and liabilities” - Pr.CIT recorded that AO has not made any inquiry or verification regarding the deemed income with respect to properties of assessee owned during the year under consideration nor the assessee offered income from house property, except of one property, though the assessee is owner of nine residential properties - HELD THAT:- Pr.CIT in his show cause notice referred nine properties owned by assessee. In response to show cause notice, the assessee has explained about each and every property and user thereof or explaining that out of such property, is open plot and Kailash nagar property is still now owned by assessee and rest of the properties were either self-occupied or under the use of partnership firm wherein the assessee is a partner being Doctor in the hospital. Assessee has also furnished necessary evidence with regard to each and every property as well as confirmation by the nurses who is occupying the flat No. 10, Piplod. We further find that despite giving all such details, the ld. Pr.CIT instead of giving his independent finding, directed the Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment order. We find that on similar submission, this combination of this Bench in Nilkanth Stone Industries [2021 (6) TMI 133 - ITAT SURAT] by relying upon the decision of Vikas Polymers [2010 (8) TMI 745 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that it is a prerequisite that Pr.CIT must giving his reason to justify the exercise of suo moto revision. Mere reiteration that order of Assessing Officer is erroneous and in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue will not suffice. The exercise of power being quasi-judicial in nature must be of such as to show that the enhancement or modification of assessment or cancellation of the assessment or directions issued for fresh assessment was called for and must irresistibly lead to the conclusion that the assessment order is not only erroneous but prejudicial to the interest of revenue Thus we find that when the case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and the Assessing Officer made complete investigation about the issue of limited scrutiny and accepted the return of income, the assessment order cannot be branded as erroneous. Decided in favour of assessee.
|