TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified in directing the AO to examine the allowability of these items of expenditure. The assessee is always at liberty to show as to how the material found in the survey was not sufficient to make any additions in the hands of the assessee. We, therefore, confirm the order of the CIT. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.163/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year : 2016-17) - - - Dated:- 14-9-2021 - SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA Respondent by: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru ORDER Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 15.03.2021 of the Pr.CIT (Central), Bengaluru, relating to AY 2016-17. 2. The assessee is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. For Assessment Year 2016-17, the assessee filed return of income declaring Nil income. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued a notice dated 03.12.2018 in which the AO pointed out that there was a survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) conducted in the premises of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue. The CIT was of the view that assessment order dated 31.12.2018 for A.Y.2016-17 was passed without making proper verification which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 6. In reply of the aforesaid show cause notice, the assessee submitted that the NR vouchers that were impounded at the time of survey do not belong to the trust and that one Mr. Thomas P John has owned the NR vouchers. The assessee also submitted that the AO made enquiries by issue of a notice dated 03.12.2018 and the assessee had given a reply to the said notice and the AO after taking cognizance of the reply has accepted the stand of the assessee and therefore the order of the AO cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as the AO had made proper enquiries before concluding the assessment. 7. The CIT however did not accept the claim of the assessee and he set aside the order of the AO for passing a fresh Assessment Order for the following reasons: 5. I have considered the assessee's submissions. I have also gone through the assessment records. It is true that the A.O. had issued a Show Cause Notice on the basis of incriminating, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound and on all the three items highlighted by Mr. Tejveer Singh is that there were materials before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer made enquiries about the above referred aspects and which have been noted by the Commissioner. The assessee made submissions by placing all relevant documents before the Assessing Officer. Thus the case does not fall within the parameters laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts. The Mere fact that the Assessing Officer did not make any reference to these three issues in the assessment order cannot make the order erroneous when the issues were indeed looked into. The entire details were filed and the order itself indicates that it can be inferred that the Assessing Officer not only made enquiries, but satisfied himself with the assessee's replies furnished from time to time in support of its stand. When the Tribunal concludes in this manner and finally in paragraph 16 holds that the Assessing Officer took a perfectly corrector a possible view, then, the order passed by him cannot be termed as erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue The Commissioner of Income Tax was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed into by the Indian Government with the Canadian Government as well as the Thailand Government the income which fall part of total turnover and the consequential TDS claimed in Canada and Thailand cannot be allowed in India when computing the total deduction. 3. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Hind Wire Industrial Ltd cannot be made applicable when jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act is invoked. 12. The Hon ble Court held as follows: 26. We are also not in a position to accept the submission that the materials had been placed before the assessing authority and therefore there should be a conclusion that the authority has applied his mind to the same and there was no question of the commissioner interfering by taking a different view etc. 27. Assessing authority performs a quasi-judicial function and the reasons for his conclusions and findings should be forthcoming in the assessment order. Though it is urged on behalf of the assessee by its learned counsel that reasons should be spelt out only in a situation where the assessing authority passes an order against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
