Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 16 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - As per CIT taxing the income @30% on the additional income representing the unexplained investment in stock required to be brought to tax u/s 115BBE and to be levied @60% instead of 30% - search u/s 132 was conducted and excess stock was found which was admitted by the assessee as additional income - Pr.CIT viewed that the assessment order passed by the AO, taxing the income @30% instead of 60% is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue - HELD THAT:- AO caused necessary enquiries after satisfying himself that the income representing the excess stock required to be brought to tax as business income, but not u/s 69 completed the assessment proceedings. The Ld.Pr.CIT taken a different view and held that the excess stock required to be brought to tax u/s 69 thus, on the same issue, on which the AO located the excess stock represents business income, the Ld.Pr.CIT has taken a different view and made revision u/s 263 of the Act. It is settled issue that on difference of opinion, the CIT is not permitted to make revision u/s 263. This view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Spectra Shares and Scrips (P) Limited [2013 (6) TMI 173 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] held that merely because of difference of opinion, Pr.CIT cannot invoke his powers u/s 263 . As decided in G.V.R. ASSOCIATES VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER [2017 (4) TMI 393 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] estimation of the net profit is one of the permissible methods of assessment of income from business. AO had taken a conscious decision of estimating the net profit from business after considering the nature and complexity of the books of account maintained by the assessee. Once AO had taken a conscious decision and acted in accordance with law and made the assessment, the same could not be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner, simply because according to him, the Assessing Officer should have made further enquiries. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|