TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rror, as find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the action of the A.O. in not calling for the tax audit report under section 44AB cannot be regarded as an error in the order of the A.O. which is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Bank account reflected business activities for only 3 months and the balance transactions throughout the year were stated as activities on the agricultural lands of assessee's wife - Held that:- As regards non-examination of the transactions reflected in the bank account of the assessee for the period from 01.07.2008 to 31.03.2009, it is observed that this aspect was duly examined by the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings as is evident from the relevant portion of the assessment order which wherein the issue relating to the transactions reflected in the bank account of the assessee from 01.07.2008 to 31.03.2009 was examined by the A.O. and on such examination, the addition of ₹ 40,500 was also made by the A.O. to the total income of the assessee being estimated interest income. A possible view on this issue thus was taken by the A.O. after due examination and application of mind and even if th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee. Also, the A.O. did not call for the relevant details in this respect and examined them. 2.1. The Ld. CIT therefore issued a notice under section 263 pointing out the above errors allegedly committed by the A.O. in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) and requiring the assessee to explain as to why the said order of the A.O. should not be revised being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 2.2. In reply to the show cause notice issued by the Ld. CIT under section 263, the following submission was made by the assessee in writing : It is to submit that Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada vide the above said letter has called objections for revision or cancellation of assessment order dated 31.05.2011 for the assessment year 2009-10. The revision is proposed as per the provisions of sec 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee submits his objections before the judicious authority as follows : Any order passed by the assessing officer which is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, can be reviewed by the Commissioner as per the provisions of section 263. Hence, for any or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Venkata Krishna Rice Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad) held when CIT clearly conceded that order of assessment was in accordance with law, same could not therefore be regarded as erroneous. No material stated in order of CIT to suggest in what way prejudice to interest of Revenue, CIT did not therefore assume jurisdiction validity . In the instant case the AO has verified the books of accounts, vouchers and .bills and called for the required information and explanations. Reexamination of books of accounts under the guise or grab of revision is unjust and unwarranted. Hence, the invocation of powers u/s 263 is unjust and unwarranted both on facts and as per the provisions of law. And the assessee prays to drop the proceedings initiated. Considering the above submissions, the assessee requests the authority Commissioner of Income Tax to drop the revision proceedings initiated u/s 263. In addition to the above submissions, further submissions were made on behalf of the assessee from time to time during the course of proceedings under section 263 before the Ld. CIT as required by the later. 2.3. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case, only three mistakes were allegedly pointed by the Ld. CIT in the order of the A.O. in the solitary notice issued under section 263 and the issue that requires my consideration is whether the order of the A.O. actually suffered from such errors calling for revision by the Ld. CIT under section 263. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has clarified that assessee is proprietor of M/s. Sri Srirama Wines and since he was earlier working with another concern namely Sony Wines, the care-of address of that concern was given while opening the bank account. This being the factual position, no enquiry on this aspect of the matter was required to be done by the A.O. and it cannot be said that the order of the A.O. passed under section 143(3) was erroneous as alleged by the Ld. CIT on the basis of point No.1 raised in the notice issued under section 263. 4. As regards point No.2 raised by the Ld. CIT in notice issued under section 263 that the A.O. having failed to call for the tax audit report under section 44AB which was required to be filed by the assessee, his order suffered from an error, I find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
