TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not against the law, therefore, for this reason also, the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous. We also agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the CIT cannot direct the AO to redo the assessment without pointing out the errors committed by the AO and without giving a finding as to how the assessment order is erroneous. From the literal reading of the order u/s 263, we find that the CIT pointed out certain discrepancies and then subsequently reproduced the assessee s submissions and then directed the AO to redo the assessment. Thus, there is no finding whatsoever, as to whether the assessee s contentions were acceptable to him or not and as to how the assessment order is erroneous. Therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al expenditure of ₹ 17,25,575/- as per P L A/c, the income of ₹ 9,55,856 needs to be added to total income. c) As seen from computation, the assessee claimed TDS of ₹ 25,58,898 on the incomes but the income was offered short as under: Income As per TDS claim (computation) Income offered as per return Income short offered Kalaniketan 2,20,32,522 2,05,18,259 15,14,263 My Time Travelcy 7,74,341 4,92,768 2,81,573 YKM Hotels 6,14,297 4,98,028 1,16,269 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,00,000 Security charges ₹ 4,04,634 Total ₹ 11,72,647 Maintenance charges received is Rs/9,55,856. Thus, there is deficit of ₹ 2,16,791 which is not even claimed from the income. Neither maintenance charge nor expenditure incurred is to be considered u/s 24. c) There is no mismatch of income as per Return of income and TDS details. TDS on rent was deduction u/s 194I whereas TDS on maintenance charge was deducted u/s 194C. Rent Maintenance Total Rent as per return Rent as per 26AS My Time Travelex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alled for by the AO including the reconciliation of the receipts and TDS as per 26AS. On page 18 is the notice of the AO dated 9.2.2017 u/s 154 of the Act to rectify certain mistakes in the assessment order and at para 2 thereof is the issue with regard to the maintenance charges received from the tenants and the expenditure on maintenance claimed against the same. Page 19 to 20 is the information submitted by the assessee after which 154 proceedings were dropped. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO had verified and applied his mind to the information and the relevant issues and therefore, the assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He relied upon the decision of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son also, the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous. 7. Further, we also agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the CIT cannot direct the AO to redo the assessment without pointing out the errors committed by the AO and without giving a finding as to how the assessment order is erroneous. From the literal reading of the order u/s 263, we find that the CIT pointed out certain discrepancies and then subsequently reproduced the assessee s submissions and then directed the AO to redo the assessment. Thus, there is no finding whatsoever, as to whether the assessee s contentions were acceptable to him or not and as to how the assessment order is erroneous. Therefore, the revision order passed by the Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
