Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 548 - ITAT KOLKATARevision u/s 263 - erroneous and prejudicial to revenue order - Revised return - assessment proceedings - Receipt of report of DVO u/s 55A after after the completion of assessment u/s 143(3) - held that:- where a regular assessment proceedings having been commenced u/s. 143(2) of the Act, there is no need for a summary assessment u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act. Hon’ble Delhi High Court has gone further in the case of CIT Vs. Punjab National Bank [2001 (2) TMI 126 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein it is held that where an intimation was sent to the assessee u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act and, thereafter, the AO has issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, any change in the said intimation, if permissible, has to be effected in the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act and not by exercising power u/s. 154 of the Act to rectify such intimation issued u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act. - It means once action u/s. 143(2) of the Act is initiated, no proceedings u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act or 154 of the Act can be taken up till 143(3) of the Act is passed. Regarding revised return - held that:- assessee while filing revised return has substantially changed/reduced its losses from Rs.1,20,25,795/- to Rs.6,81,683/- on the basis of registered valuer’s report, which was filed along with the revised return of income. Hence, we treat the revised return of income filed by assessee as a valid revised return filed within the prescribed time of section 139(5) of the Act. Reference of DVO - held that:- the fair market value adopted by DVO at Rs.4,72,370/- is lower than the fair market value adopted by assessee, on the basis of registered valuer’s report, at Rs.77,47,750/- and in our view, as held by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Hiaben Jayantilal Shah (supra) cl. (a) of s. 55A of the Act cannot be made applicable because the estimate value proposed by DVO is less than the fair market value disclosed by assessee as on 1.4.1981. Similarly, clause (b) of s. 55A of the Act also cannot be invoked because for invoking cl. (b) of this section is possible only when value claimed by assessee is not supported by an estimate made by registered valuer. Income from House property - held that:- complete information before the AO was available at the time of framing of assessment in respect to 11 units of house property at 65, Hari Ram Goenka St., and assessee has disclosed notional value u/s. 23(2) of the Act at NIL in its computation of income and AO while adjudicating this issue has accepted the notional value at NIL from these units. Once the entire information is before the AO, and AO has formed opinion, no revision is possible in respect to assessment framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Regarding revision u/s 263 - held that:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT], which is applicable to the facts of this case. Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the phrase ‘prejudicial to the interest of the revenue’, and interpreted that it has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO and every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of AO, it cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. CIT has erred in exercising jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act for revising the assessment framed by AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act as the assessment is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. - Decided in favor of assessee.
|