Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals SMS News Articles Highlights
        Home        
 
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Neha S. Saney Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-22 And Income Tax Officer 28 (2) (3) , Mumbai

2017 (12) TMI 580 - ITAT MUMBAI

Revision u/s 263 - seized material revealed unexplained investment - as per assessee made solely on the basis of entries found in loose papers which were in possession of third party - Held that:- As perused the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record. Upon perusal of the same, we find that the additions have been made solely on the basis of entries found in loose papers seized from a third party. No cogent material has been placed on record by Ld. AO to corroborate the sam .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Dated:- 8-12-2017 - SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM For The Assessee : Ritika Agarwal, Ld. AR For The Revenue : Suman Kumar, Ld.DR ORDER Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The captioned appeal by assessee as well as revenue arises out of invocation of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax. ITA No. 1710/Mum/2013 by assessee contest validity of exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-22 whereas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

72,950/- filed by the assessee on 31/07/2009. The assessment was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer 22(3)(3), Mumbai. Subsequently, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-22, Mumbai [CIT] invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 vide order dated 04/02/2013 quashed the said assessment order and directed Ld. AO to make fresh assessment. 2.2 The revisional jurisdiction was triggered pursuant to receipt of a proposal dated 31/10/2012 from Ld. AO through Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 22(3). The p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s 132 on 19/02/2009. The perusal of seized papers revealed that the out of ₹ 86 Lacs, the agreement was for ₹ 36.40 Lacs and the balance amount was paid in cash. It was further stated that the information was received by Ld. AO on 10/04/2012 i.e. well after completion of assessment u/s 143(3) and therefore, Ld.AO contended that income to the tune of ₹ 25 Lacs was not brought to tax in the assessment order. 2.3 Consequently, a show-cause notice u/s 263 dated 14/11/2012 was issue .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pined that the information from investigation wing was received by Ld. AO on 10/04/2012 i.e. well after completion of assessment and therefore, the same could not be utilized / appreciated by Ld. AO during assessment proceedings and therefore, action u/s 263 was valid since the order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us and contests the very invocation of jurisdiction u/s 263. 3. The Ld. Counsel for Assessee [ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

attention is drawn to various documents placed in the paper book submitted by assessee. Per Contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [DR] contended that the provisions u/s 263 were meant to make up for the errors / omissions which took place while framing the assessment and therefore, the jurisdiction was rightly invoked by Ld. CIT since it was noticed on the basis of seized material that the assessee made cash payment towards purchase of the shop which was not taken into account while framing t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

itioned details of purchase / sale of immoveable properties acquired by the assessee during the impugned year and preceding three years with supporting documents and source thereof. The assessee, vide reply dated 14/07/2011, submitted details of the shop acquired by the assessee along with payment details and source of funds. However, there is no discussion / arguments anywhere either in the assessment order or in the submissions made by the assessee about the seized material and cash payment as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

evenue s appeal ITA No. 7349/Mum/2014 which is against relief provided to the assessee in the consequential order. Pursuant to directions u/s 263, the quantum assessment was reframed by Ld. AO on 31/12/2013 where the assessee was saddled with additions of ₹ 12.50 Lacs u/s 69 towards her share of unexplained investment and another addition of ₹ 37.50 Lacs on protective basis to account for unexplained investment of the co-owner. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same with succe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nation, he retracted his earlier statement wherein he stated that he had received cash as well as cheque against the sale of flat and the seized material reflected both cash as well as cheque component. Apart from this, it was brought to the notice of the AO that said Shri Kantilal Patel had written a letter way back on 5th May, 2009 to the DDIT (INV) clarifying therein that he had not received cash from all flat buyers. He further confirmed the said statement made in the aforesaid letter addres .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

party. Therefore, in the instant case when Shri Kantilal Patel has denied having received any cash from the appellant, addition can not be made in the hands of appellant without bringing documentary evidence or otherwise to justify such addition. In the present case, the AO has merely relied upon the order of the CIT under section 263 of the Act without bringing on record any material in support of such addition made. 2.27 The appellant has also submitted before me that in the case the stamp off .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.