TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uced by the partners has to be examined in the hands of the individual partners. The assessee has already explained the source and the CIT has not found the said sources as not acceptable. Therefore, we set aside the revision order u/s 263 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 1004/Hyd/2013 - - - Dated:- 19-10-2016 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member For : Assessee Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, AR For : Revenue Smt. G.V. Hemalatha, DR ORDER Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J. M. This is assessee s appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad, dated 25-03-2013 passed u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act [Act]. 2. Brief facts of the case a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of survey, but did not consider and verify the additional capital introduced by the partners to the tune of ₹ 15,51,650/-. He observed that the AO did not call for the details of the sources and the same remained unexplained. Therefore, he was of the opinion that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He therefore issued a show cause notice to the assessee u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee vide letter dt. 13- 03-2013, explained that the additional income of ₹ 44,90,295 offered by the assessee u/s. 133A in his return of income included a sum of ₹ 10 Lakhs as a source for capital introduced. It was also explained that an additional sum of ₹ 4 Lakhs was introduced by Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... According to him the CIT cannot revise the order only on the ground that it is erroneous, without giving a finding as to how the assessment order is also prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He submitted that the CIT cannot direct the AO to make fresh enquiries to arrive at the conclusion that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In support of these contentions, he placed reliance upon the following decisions: i. Spectra Shares Scripts (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [36 Taxmann.com 348] (AP); ii. ITO Vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd., (2012) [20 Taxmann.com 587] (Delhi); iii. New Cyberabad City Projects (P) Ltd., Vs. ITO (2013) [33 Taxmann.com 280] (Hyd Trib.) and also CBDT Circular in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pay tax. The value of the excess of stock offered during the course of survey was ₹ 26,59,315/-. In the computation of income, the assessee has offered ₹ 44,90,295/- u/s. 133A of the Act and during the assessment proceedings, the AO has not accepted the assessee s contentions of the customers gold items of the value of ₹ 9,20,000 being with the assessee and has made the addition of the entire difference of ₹ 26,59,315/-. We find that before the CIT(A), the breakup of the amount declared by the assessee has been given and the sum of ₹ 34,90,295/- has been offered for the difference in stock at Charminar and Panjagutta and a sum of ₹ 10 Lakhs has been offered for various discrepancies. The assessee has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
