TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Income Tax was not justified in treating the said amount as part of undisclosed income and assuming jurisdiction under section 263 when it was disclosed and assessed. As regards applicability of section 45 (2), Tribunal noticed that Commissioner of Income Tax had accepted applicability of the said provision and therefore, it was held that there is no error in the order of the Assessing Officer. Tribunal further held that inquiry was made by the Assessing Officer into disclosures made during the course of the assessment proceedings by the assessee. When the issue was enquired into by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner ought not to have invoked jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Impugned order passed by the Tribunal d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nquiry; as per Explanation 2 to Section 263 ?. (B) Whether in law and on the facts of the instant case, the Tribunal was in error in coming to the finding that the issue relating to the sale price of land was not validly raised by the CIT; whereas the examination of the said issue, by the directions of the CIT was to be done by the AO; in the context of the sale to a sister concern ?. (C) Whether in law and on the facts of the instant case, was the Tribunal justified in concluding that the directions of the CIT to the AO to treat the amount of ₹ 6.85 lakhs was erroneous; since unexplained money is assessed under Section 69A and not as income from other sources ?. 5. Respondent is an assessee under the Act and subject to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erroneous inasmuch as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax set aside the assessment order under section 263 of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to pass fresh order in the light of the discussions made in the order passed under section 263. 8. Aggrieved by the above, Respondent preferred appeal before the Tribunal, which was registered as I.T.A. No. 2881/M/2015. By the order dated 18.05.2016 Tribunal took the view that the Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified in invoking jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act and set aside the said order, allowing the appeal of the Respondent. 9. Out of three issues, the Tribunal held that the first issue did not result in any revenue loss and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. After hearing both the parties on this issue and on perusal of the said documents placed before us in light of written submissions made by the parties in the dispute, we are of the opinion that the CIT invalidly assumed jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act on this issue. Accordingly, the order of the AO cannot be considered erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, findings of the CIT in this regard stand reversed. . 10.1. From the above, it is seen that the assessee had disclosed in his return of income the aforesaid amount of ₹ 6.85 lakhs. At the end of the assessment, the said amount was taxed by the Assessing Officer under the head of income from other sources . Therefore, it was h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
