TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nderstand how the author has arrived at a particular conclusion. The thought process should be reflected therein. In this case in the assessment order, the entire exercise is missing. Merely extraction of submissions cannot justify that the Assessing Officer has applied his mind. Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT [1967 (5) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT ] and Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1972 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] has been held that where Assessing Officer has accepted a particular contention/issue without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. AO while accepting the documents submitted by the Ld. AR, has not conducted any specific enquiry as to the facts of the case. There is no iota of evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer justifying that there was mistake committed by the assessee vis- -vis his filing of original as well as revised return of income. Assessee also argued that the view taken by the AO may not be a proper one as per CIT is concerned nonetheless, it is definitely an appropriate view. We do not agree with the contention of the Ld. AR since taking a view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al income before Chapter-VI deduction was ₹ 4,44,39,344/- as against ₹ 7,64,02,293/-. Thus, the total income was shown less by ₹ 3,19,62,949/-. One of the main heads where income was reduced was house property. In the revised computation, income from house property was offered to the extent of ₹ 75,28,744/- as against ₹ 2,19,05,841/- which is less by ₹ 1,43,77,079/-. No explanation nor any valid reason for drastic fall in returned income has been offered by the assessee company. 3.3. A show-cause notice was issued to the assessee on 11.03.2019 as to why the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 cannot be set aside u/s.263 of the Act. In response to the said show cause notice, the Ld. AR of the assessee filed written submissions which are on record. 4. The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Pune on analyzing the facts and circumstances of the case vis- -vis assessment order held that relevant facts in this case were not at all examined by the Assessing Officer and he has simply accepted the submissions of the Ld. AR and reproduced/extracted the same without any application of mind. There is no discussion which fortifies that he has applied hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... totally incorrect as is evident from the submissions made before the AO as also from Para 8, 8.1 and 8.1.1 of the assessment order where he has considered the revised computation. 9. Further, the Hon. PCIT points out no error in the order and no prejudice, as the computation in both the cases results in Nil income. 10. Para 3 (unnumbered) of the order u/s.263 reads thus - On perusal of the same it is seen that the revised computation, gross total income before Chp. VI deduction was ₹ 4,44,39,344/- as against ₹ 7,64,02,293/-. Thus, the total income was shown less by ₹ 3,19,62,949/- . This is an incorrect observation as both the computations result in Nil total income. 11. Para 5 (unnumbered) of the order u/s.263 concludes thus Though the AR claimed that these facts were examined accepted by AO, there is no record of the same in the assessment folder . 12. Your Honour's attention is invited to the submissions dated 15/03/2019 made in response to notice u/s. 263 (Pages 3 to 6 of Paper Book) which also contains Annexures 1 to 3 (Page 7 to 10 of Paper Book) which Annexures were also before the AO. The AO, himself, has extracted both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istrict Central Co-op Bank Ltd. V. PCIT (ITA No. 164 628/PUN/2019) [Refer Para 10 at page 37 Para 21 at Page 42 of CLC] c) CIT v. Ashish Rajpal (320 ITR 0674) (Del) [Refer Para 15 16 at pages 56-57 of CLC] d) DIT v. Jyoti Foundation (357 ITR 0388) (Del) [Refer Para 5 at Page 66 of CLC read with Para 4 at Page 63 of CLC] e) CIT v. Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 0537) (Del) [Refer Para 18 at Page 75 of CLC] f) CIT v. M/s. s.R. Corporation (ITA No.289/SRT/2018) [Refer Para 20 21 at Page 91 of CLC]. 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has placed strong reliance on the findings of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax u/s.263 of the Act stating that though in the original return, income from Kothrud property has been shown amounting to ₹ 3,15,50,560/-, however, it was drastically reduced to ₹ 3,71,160/- for which there is no discussion in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer nor any reasons has been put in as to why the Assessing Officer has accepted such difference in offering of income for taxation purposes. The Ld. DR further submitted that there is loss of the Revenue by the action of the Assessing Officer for which the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order, the entire exercise is missing. Merely extraction of submissions cannot justify that the Assessing Officer has applied his mind. 7.2 The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Kerala State, 243 ITR 83 (SC) has held that where Assessing Officer had accepted the entry in the statement of account in the absence of supporting material, without making any inquiry, the exercise of jurisdiction by CIT under section 263(1) was justified. The operative part of decision is as under. In the instant case, the Commissioner noted that the ITO passed the order of nil assessment without application of mind. Indeed, the High Court recorded the finding that the ITO failed to apply his mind to the case in all perspective and the order passed by him was erroneous. It appeared that the resolution passed by the board of the appellant- company was not placed before the Assessing Officer. Thus, there was no material to support the claim of the appellant that the said amount represented compensation for loss agricultural income. He accepted the entry in the statement of the account filed by the appellant in the absence of any supporting mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
