Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 291 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAMRevision u/s 263 - estimation of net profit - Held that:- A.O. has not examined the issues pointed out by the CIT in the revision proceedings before rejection of books of accounts and estimation of net profit. We further noticed that the A.O. has simply rejected books of accounts and estimated net profit of 5% without any comparable cases of similar nature to justify the net profit applied by the A.O. The CIT, on the other hand has brought out number of issues wherein he has recorded his categorical finding to the effect that the A.O. has not verified any of the issues which is the reason for revision of assessment order. The CIT questioned number of issues right from additions to capital account to estimation of net profit. The assessee neither appeared before the CIT nor furnished any details to justify his case. Since, the assessee failed to appear before the CIT, we are of the opinion that the CIT cannot presume things which are in the mind of the assessee, as such opined that the CIT has rightly assumed his jurisdiction to revise assessment order on the information available on record. Accordingly, we uphold the CIT order u/s 263 of the Act and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. Appeal against the assessment completed as per the directions of the CIT u/s 263 - Held that:- On perusal of the assessment records, we find that the CIT has given an open direction to the A.O. u/s 263 of the Act to re-do the assessment de-novo after duly examining the issues pointed out by the CIT. Therefore, in our considered view, the directions given by the CIT is an open direction and it is open to the assessing officer to examine the issues on merits as per the provisions of the Act. The A.O. has passed fresh assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act and accordingly, assessment order passed u/s 143(3) or 144 of the Act, is an appealable order u/s 246A of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the CIT(A) was erred in not adjudicating the appeal filed by the assessee on merits. Hence, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and restore the appeal to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the issues on merits.
|