TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferent orders of the learned Principal CIT, Bhopal, dated 26.2.2016, 26.2.2016 and 26.3.2016. 2. All these appeals are barred by limitation by 27, 42 and 23 days, respectively. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay on the ground that Shri H.P. Verma, Senior Counsel was engaged to file the appeal in time but because of his illness, he could not prepare the appeal in time and as such the appeals could not be filed in time. On the other hand, the learned DR opposed to the condonation of delay request. 3. After hearing the parties, we condone the delay in filing of the appeals and proceed to decide the same. 4. In all these appeals, the common issue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under section 263 of the Act. In ITA No. 607/Ind/2016 the following facts are involved. 5. The company has declared loss of ₹ 15529993/- and claimed refund of ₹ 1043840/- on account of TDS. The reconciliation of 26-SS statement has not been done vis- -vis offered in the profit and loss account. As per 26- SS statement the total receipt is ₹ 51999651/- which was shown with TDS of ₹ 1048602/- whereas the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing evidence towares cost of acquisition has not brought on record. It is noticed that said building was sold to M/s PGH International Pvt. Ltd. and in lieu of sale consideration, the company has allotted 12,000 shares of face value of ₹ 10/- each to the assessee. M/s PGH International Pvt. Ltd. is family concern. It is further noticed that the assessee has also invested ₹ 1,38,00,000/- in the share capital of the said company. (iii) that the bank accounts of the assessee and the ledger account in various sister concerns have not been verified during the assessment proceedings. (iv) That the reconciliation of receipts as per 26AS statement vis- -vis income declared in the return of income has also not been examined in detail. 9. The Commissioner of Income Tax was of the view that in this case the assessment was made without conducting proper inquiry which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Commissioner of Income Tax relied on the following decisions in support of his conclusion :- (i) Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT; 67 ITR 84(SC) (ii) CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper Boards Limited; 242 ITR 490 (Mad.) (iii) CIT vs. Bhagw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position of TDS, hence disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) needs to be examined PB 36-40 is the part of Tax Audit Report. It is clear that the entire amount was deposited before due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) During assessment, a specific query was raised on same. Reply to the query is at PB 12 para 5 3 Cash deposits in the bank should have been examined during assessment ₹ 54,34,500 through the bank All the deposits in the bank are routed account. No specific entry found, not to have been routed otherwise. Books were produced in assessment they are audited. The observation is vague and non-specific ITA No. 608/Ind/2016 Sr. No. Reason given u/s 263 Submission of assessee 1 Case was seleceted for scrutiny to examine huge additions made u/s 153A/143(3) for A.Y.2004- 05 to 2009-10 and order u/s 143(3) passed on 26.1.2011 on account of payments made from undisclosed sources in purchase of land. These issues were not verified in assessment PB-10 para 14-15. Purchase of lands ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. PB 16-19. (b) On this count, how it can be said that prejudice was caused to revenue. It is therefore submitted that the ld. CIT, could not have held that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue .Further reliance is placed on submissions filed to ld. CIT. 10. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the order dated 14th July, 2016 of this Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of M/s Gulmohar Traders and others in ITA No. 467/Ind/2016, 275/Ind/2016 etc. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that a very unfortunate incident took place against the AO doing the assessment against whom action was taken by the CBI and the said Officer was suspended. Thereafter, on 29.03.2014 by order passed u/s 127 of the Act, the CIT transferred the cases to the present Assessing Officer. The present Assessing Officer completed the assessment on 30th March, 2014, as they were getting barred by limitation at the returned income filed by the assessee without making any enquiry. He argued that though the earlier AO may have made enquiry in these cases but due to paucity of time the present Assessing Officer did not have time to look into the volu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decisions, we are of the view that there was no occasion for the Assessing Officer to make any inquiry and the Assessing Officer accepted the return without proper inquiry as a result of which substantial amount of taxable income was not brought to tax. We also hold that no rule of universal application can be laid down for exercise of revisional powers u/s 263 of the act. It will depend on the facts of each and every case but the Commissioner of Income Tax must be satisfied of existence of twin conditions that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We also get support from the following judgments :- (i) Ram Pyari devi Saraogi vs. CIT; 67 ITR 84(SC) (ii) CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper Boards Ltd.; 242 ITR 490 (Mad.) (iii) CIT vs. Bhagwandas; 272 ITR 367 (All) (iv) Pratap Footwear vs. ACIT; (2003) SOT 638 (Jabalpur)(Tri) (v) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachan (supra); Civil Appeal No.5009 of 2016 (SC) We further find that the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg; 299 ITR 435 has categorically held as under :- Held, that from the order of the Assessing Officer, it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
