TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t AO has not examined second bank account is not correct, both on facts and/or on law. Since the issue was examined by the AO in the course of scrutiny proceedings and has concluded that there is only one account which was already accounted by assessee, no prejudice is caused to Revenue, at least in assessee’s case. Therefore, Pr.CIT is not correct in exercising jurisdiction on this issue. Excess credit - Held that:- AO had examined the turnover in this year and reduced the mobilization advance and also the turnover considered twice for deduction of tax by M/s. Megha Engineering & Infra and accordingly determined the gross receipts. He also concluded the assessee accounted the turnover in later AY. 2011-12 and gave credit for the taxes a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. Rejecting the Books of Accounts, AO estimated income at 5%, as these contract receipts are sub-contract basis. Accordingly, the business income was determined at ₹ 66,11,712/- and after considering other incomes and deductions, total income was assessed at ₹ 69,16,742/- vide order dt. 13-03-2013. Ld. Pr.CIT noticed that as per the AIR transactions details placed on record, there appears to be two SB a/cs, one jointly held by assessee along with Smt. K. Rajyalaxmi and second one in the name of assessee himself. He noticed that there are deposits of similar amount of ₹ 51.36 Lakhs and AO has examined only one account and has not examined the second account. Therefore, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough it is negligible amount. Accordingly, he directed the AO to do the assessment afresh after setting aside the order U/s. 263. 4. Assessee is aggrieved and raised the following grounds: 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appropriate the fact that the Assessing Officer has already examined all the issues raised in the proceedings U/s. 263 and hence exemption of jurisdiction U/s. 263 is not justified. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate the fact the appellant is having only one Bank A/c and assumption of jurisdiction on the issue of deposits in one more Bank A/c is based on assumption and suspicion only and hence learned Commissioner of Income Tax is not justified in holding that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en received by the Department. It was pointed out that both the transaction slips referred to the same account and same RRR number and the same names of joint holders. In one slip it was shown as Kalagara Srinivasa Rao, as party one, whereas in other slip, it was shown as Kalagara Rajyalaxmi as party one. The PAN reflected there is that of assessee and statement was generated on 31-08-2010 with same AIR filer TAN of MUMU01693G. It was submitted that the same transaction was reported twice by the bank, one in the name of assessee and another in the name of assessee s wife, being a joint a/c and this was mistaken by the Pr.CIT as that of two accounts. It was submitted that there is only one account which the AO has enquired and accepted and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wife. In fact AO issued a show cause notice letter dt. 04-02-2013, for which assessee replied on 25-02-2013. Ld. Pr.CIT was not correct in stating that AO has not examined vide the notice U/s. 142(1) dt. 03-07- 2012. He simply ignored the subsequent notice available on record and therefore, we are of the opinion that the opinion expressed by the Pr.CIT that AO has not examined second bank account is not correct, both on facts and/or on law. Since the issue was examined by the AO in the course of scrutiny proceedings and has concluded that there is only one account which was already accounted by assessee, no prejudice is caused to Revenue, at least in assessee s case. Therefore, Pr.CIT is not correct in exercising jurisdiction on this issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ully exigible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation, a lesser tax than was just, has been imposed. The power of the Commissioner u/s 263(1) is not limited only to the material which was available before the AO and in order to protect the interests of the Revenue, the Commissioner is entitled to examine any other records which are available at the time of examination by him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of the assessment . 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd., Vs. CIT [243 ITR 83 (SC)] held that the phrase prejudicial to the interest of Revenue had to be read in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
