TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer successfully substituted by initiating proposal for invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act. We find merit in the submissions of assessee. As is evident from the documents on record we invoke the provisions of section 263 of the Act have been invoked in blatant abuse to revisional jurisdiction. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1028/PUN/2016 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2019 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, AM And Shri Vikas Awasthy, JM Assessee by: Shri Vishnu Bhutada Revenue by: Ms. Nandita Kanchan ORDER Vikas Awasthy, This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Pune dated 24-03-2014 passed u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are : The assessee is a builder and developer and is carrying its business under the name and style of Deshna Constructions . The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 27-03-2013 declaring total income of ₹ 1,96,000/-. The assessee returned his total income under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings) have not been examined by the AO. 4) The Learned Pr. CIT has erred in concluding that the assessment order passed by the AO is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and is erroneous in the nature. 5) The Learned Pr. CIT has erred in concluding that no enquiry / investigation has been carried out by the AO in regard to the source of the investment in immovable property. 6) The Learned Pr. CIT has erred in ignoring the records of the assessment proceedings while passing the impugned order. 7) The impugned order is passed by the Learned Pr. CIT without applying mind. 8) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. The assessee has raised additional ground of appeal challenging the validity of revisional order. The same is reproduced as under : Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 invoked revision proceedings u/s. 263 exclusively based on the proposal/suggestion made by the Assessing Officer thereby failed to apply his mind independently which results the entire revision proceedings illegal/illegitimate and need to quash. 4. Shri Vishnu Bhutada ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ld. AR referred to the proposal for revision of assessment order for assessment year 2011-12 at pages 118 and 119 of the paper book. The ld. AR pointed that the Assessing Officer proposed revision of order u/s. 263 citing paucity of time during assessment for not deeply scrutinizing the case. Whereas, it is a clear case of change of opinion by Assessing Officer. The ld. AR submitted that the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax merely on proposal made by the Assessing Officer cannot assume jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. To support of his submissions the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 71 Taxman 585 (Bom); ii. Span Overseas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No. 1223/PN/2013 for assessment year 2008-09 decided on 21-12-2015; iii. Small Wonder Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No. 2464/Mum/2013 for assessment year 2009-10 decided on 24-02-2017; iv. Gehna Jewellers P. Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No. 3530/Mum/2017 for assessment year 2012-13 decided on 22-11-2017. 5. On the other hand Ms. Nandita Kanchan representing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act and recorded their statements. The creditors appeared before the Assessing Officer and admitted to have advanced money for the purchase of property by the assessee. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order accepted the source of investments furnished by the assessee. 8. The documents on record clearly establish that the Assessing Officer had made necessary enquiries to track the source of investments made by the assessee for purchasing the property. The ld. AR has pointed that the provisions of section 263 have been invoked by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax on the proposal advanced by the Assessing Officer. The ld. AR referred to the document of proposal for revision of order u/s. 263 at pages 118 and 119 of the paper book. A close reading of the said proposal document shows that the reason for initiating proposal for invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 is paucity of time in deeply scrutiny the case by Assessing Officer. The relevant extract of the proposal indicating above reasons reads as under : The AO has rejected the stand of the assessee regarding the filing of return u/s. 44AD of the I.T. Act, 1961. However, due to paucity of time t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
