TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to make further investigations afresh when the Assessing Officer had already applied his mind and thoroughly examined the issues which were directed to be reexamined by the Ld. CIT. Therefore, by considering the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the view that the assessment order dated 22/07/2011 passed by the Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. - Decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No.148/Jodh/2014 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2014 - Hari Om Maratha, JM And N. K. Saini, AM,JJ. For the Appellants : Shri U C Jain Shri Rajendra Jain For the Respondent : Shri O P Meena, DR ORDER Per: N K Saini,AM. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 19/02/2014 of Ld. CIT-I, Jodhpur. The following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT-I, Jodhpur u/s. 263 of I.T. Act, 1961 is bad in law, bad in facts and perverse. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-I, Jodhpur grossly erred in setting aside the assessment order passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring. 7) The petitioner prays for justice relief. 2. From the above grounds, it would be clear that the only grievance of the assessee relates to the action of the Ld. CIT in setting aside of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' in short) by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. 3. Facts relating to this case, in brief, are that the assessee filed the return of income on 31/03/2010 declaring total income of ₹ 5,22,640/-. The assessment was completed u/s. 143 (3) of the Act on 22/07/2011 determining the total income at ₹ 5,34,640/-. Later on, the Ld. CIT-I, Jodhpur exercised his revisionary powers u/s. 263 of the Act and noted that the assessee purchased plot of land situated at Ramsukh Nagar, Jodhpur for total consideration of ₹ 11,30,000/-. In support of source of purchase of plot, the assessee filed a copy of bank statement during the course of assessment proceedings and stated that she had taken loan of ₹ 8,45,000/- from the bank and rest of the amount of ₹ 2,50,000/- had been borrowed from somewhere else. The Ld. CIT also observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the assessee as under:- Please refer to letter dated 1st October, 2013 of O.P. Maheswari and associates, your authorize representative on the above matter. 2). In the explanation submitted by your authorized representative, it has been submitted that the Assessee is an Income-Tax Assessee and has been filing return of income since last 10 years. In the cash flow statement for the F.Y. relevant to A.Y. 2009-10, an opening balance of ₹ 9,85,000 has been shown. Please produce in this regard, primary document to prove your contention. In the second para, the authorized representative has submitted copy of confirmation of the parties from whom cheques have been received. Please state whether these confirmations were produced before the Assessing Officer, if not, why the same should be considered in the proceeding u/s 263. 3). Please submit copy of bank statement stating from date of opening onwards with Bank of India account no. 880. 4). As per the cash flow statement comparing with bank statement, it is found that cash deposits have been utilized for the purpose of giving amount to Sh. Ashok Lohiya and payment to Saraswati Art Impex and purchase of plots. Please s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Reliance was placed on the following case laws:- 1. CIT Vs. Alborz Industries 56 DTR 334/198 Taxman 419. (H.P.) 2. CIT Vs. Toyota Motor Corporation 306 ITR 49 (Del.) 3. Smt. Renu Gupta Vs. CIT 301 ITR 45. (Raj.) 4. Kale Khan Mohammad Hannif Vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 (S.C.) 5. Smt. Taradevi Agarwal Vs. CIT 88 ITR 323. (S.C.) 6. Colourcraft Vs. ITO 303 ITR (AT) 7. (Mumb. - ITAT) Accordingly, the assessment order dated 22/07/2011 was set aside and the Assessing Officer was directed to decide the case afresh. Now the assessee is in appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the Assessing Officer examined the case thoroughly and thereafter passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer issued a detailed questionnaire to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and the assessee vide letter dated NIL, 18/07/2011 22/07/2011 (Copies of which are placed at page Nos. 14 to 20 of the assessee's paper book) gave the reply and explained each and every query raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was of the view that proper enquiry was not made by the Assessing Officer, but nothing was brought on record to substantiate that how and in what manner, proper enquiry was not made by the Assessing Officer. It is relevant to point out that the Assessing Officer specifically mentioned in the body of the assessment order that the authorized representative of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished bank pass book, Form-16 issued by the employer and relevant details which were examined by test check and case was discussed. The Assessing Officer also examined the capital account of the assessee and accepted the household expenses which were withdrawn from the capital account. The Assessing Officer also mentioned in the body of the assessment order dated 22/07/2011 that the assessee derived income by salary as a Director of M/s. Saraswati Art Palace International Ltd. and also received interest. He also pointed out that the assessee purchased residential property situated at Plot No. 17, Ramsukh Nagar, Jodhpur and had taken a loan from the bank for purchase of the property. The Assessing Officer also mentioned that the assessee had submitted registry of plot, confirmation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y a person, it would be certainly prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The power of revision is not meant to be exercised for the purpose of directing the AO to hold another investigation without describing as to how the order of the AO is erroneous. From this it also follows that where the assessment order has been passed by the AO after taking into account the assessee's submissions and documents furnished by him and no material whatsoever has been brought on record by the CIT which showed that there was any discrepancy or falsity in evidences furnished by the assessee, the order of the AO cannot be set aside for making deep inquiry only on the presumption and assumption that something new may come out. For making a valid order under s. 263 it is essential that the CIT has to record an express finding to the effect that order passed by the AO is erroneous which has caused loss to the Revenue. Furthermore, where acting in accordance with law the AO frames certain assessment order, same cannot be branded as erroneous simply because according to the CIT, the order should be written more elaborately. 11. In the present case also, the Assessing Officer framed the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
