Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 719 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - receipts of assessee under different heads i.e., academic fees, building development fund and other development funds comes - HELD THAT:- When the amount in question is included in total receipt of the assessee and have been assessed by the A.O, as such at original assessment stage after examining the same, there is no question of holding that it is an unaccounted income of the assessee or that A.O. failed to make enquiry on the same. The A.O. has verified all the facts after issuing query letter and considered the reply of the assessee and examination of details and books of accounts. Since the total receipts have been disclosed in the income and expenditure account being the receipt on account of fees received from the students and it is disclosed in the income and expenditure account, it could not be considered as unaccounted income in the hands of the assessee. A.O. has considered the total income as per income and expenditure account as per the reply filed at original assessment stage, therefore, it could not be termed as that A.O. did not verify the fact of receipt of amount from the students and thereafter deposit in Bank Account. Why the cost of acquisition of the assets should not be disallowed and not considered as income of the assessee Trust? - Second issue is with regard to amount of two entries ₹ 1.5 crores, which assessee has explained that ₹ 1.56 crores was the amount received on sale of land through cheque, therefore, it could not be an undisclosed income of the assessee. Further, interest have been received which is also appearing in Form-26AS and disclosed to the Revenue Department as well. Therefore, figure of ₹ 2.18 crores noticed by the CIT(E) in the show cause notice under section 263 is incorrect. A.O. has considered the sale proceeds and expenditure incurred by the assessee including building fund etc., in the original assessment proceedings. CIT(E) also considered the issue of cost of acquisition, but, the A.O. in the subsequent Order in pursuance of Order under section 263 did not make any addition against the assessee on account of interest as well as cost of acquisition because the same was also considered and added in the original assessment. These facts, therefore, made it very clear that Ld. CIT(E) in the show cause notice has mentioned some incorrect facts which are not part of the record and all the issues have been examined by the A.O. and has specifically mentioned in assessment order. If Ld. CIT(E) wanted to take a different view, then he should have made a detailed enquiry at revision stage and should have come to the finding as to how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. The Ld. CIT(E) merely mentioned that since these issues have not been enquired into by the A.O, therefore, Explanation-2 to Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961, would apply against the assessee. Further, assessee has explained all the issues at original assessment stage as well as before Ld. CIT(E) in proceeding under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, it is not fit case of invocation of jurisdiction under section 263 - Decided in favour of assessee.
|