9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Pr. CIT was not justified in passing the order without sending any intimation of the notice by email or SMS to the appellant, thereby depriving the appellant a reasonable opportunity to defend its case. 3. Without Prejudice on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Pr. CIT has grossly erred in holding that the AO has not made proper enquiry in regard to the difference in the receipts as reflected in the 26AS statement and the profit and loss account, ignoring the admitted fact (para 4) that the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify the mismatch between the receipts as per 26AS and Profit and loss account failing to see that the AO has not only enquired into the same but has accepted the explanation of the appellant. 4. The Pr. CIT has grossly erred in holding that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial of the interest of the revenue having failed to appreciate that the appellant has accounted for the receipt on yearly basis as per the contract and that the entire receipt has been offered for tax by the appellant over the period of the contract. 5. The appellant submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordingly income will be offered in subsequent years'. However, from the records it can be seen that no copy of any agreement was submitted by the assessee based on which payment received during the year was not offered for taxation by the assessee. AO has not inquired into this issue further. Hence, AO has failed to verify whether as per the terms of agreement the revenue received from above 3 parties was offered for tax in subsequent assessment years. AO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) on 21.12.2017 without making any specific inquiry. In absence of any specific inquiry made by the AO or recording his reasons for accepting assessee's submission without any appropriate evidence, it cannot be said that documents submitted by the assessee were duly verified by the AO. Reliance is placed on, Hon'ble Kolkata High Court's judgment in the case of Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. Pr. CIT 386 ITR 162 (Cal) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as also in the case of Daniel Merchants Private Limited vs. ITO pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29.11.2017, that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the resultant order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Nothing else is required to be established in such a case to show that the order sought to be revised is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue." (emphasis supplied). The Ld. ITAT, Mumbai in Anuj Jayaendra Shah vs. PCIT-35, Mumbai [2016] reported in 67 taxmann.com 38, held as under: "10. Now, as can be seen above, the amendment to section 263 of the Act by insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 263 is declaratory in nature and is inserted to provide clarity on the issue as to which orders passed by the AO shall constitute erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue whereby it is provided, inter alia, that if the order is passed without making inquiries or verification by the AO which, should have been made or the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; the order shall be deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue." In conclusion, the assessing officer has failed to make necessary enquiry and bring on record all facts necessary for determining the true character and nature of the income. Omission to do so has resulted in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per Book to show that all these income are accounted and taxed for in respective assessment years. He therefore submitted that learned Assessing Officer has accepted the explanation of the assessee after completely satisfying himself about the correctness of method of accounting as well as quantum of income offered. Therefore, there is no error in the order of the learned Assessing Officer. He also submitted that in a series of order of co-ordinate benches in assessee's own case, the method of accounting followed by the assessee of revenue recognition as per agreement has been accepted. Those decisions are followed for recognizing Revenue in this year also. He therefore submitted that the order passed by the learned PCIT is not sustainable in law. 08. The learned CIT Departmental Representative submitted that Assessing Officer has accepted the explanation of the assessee without verification and therefore, the order is erroneous and so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He therefore supported the order of the learned PCIT. 09. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also perused the paper book sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars. This amount has been offered for taxation by the assessee in five different years. Similarly, amount received from EPIC channel was provided in agreement for three years and same has also been disclosed as income in three different years. At page no. 11 of paper book, assessee has shown party wise, assessment year wise income offered by it. Such working was based on number of days. In view of this, we hold that learned Assessing Officer has made complete inquiry between mismatch of receipt as per 26AS and income recognized in profit and loss account. Further, as assessee has a method of recognizing revenue as per terms of agreement, over a period of time on the basis of program telecast on number of days, which is also approved by ITAT in its own case, consistently followed by assessee, we do not find that following that method makes the order of learned Assessing Officer erroneous. 011. The order passed by the learned PCIT was passed ex-parte. Assessee submitted that no notices are received by the assessee at all and therefore there is no reasonable opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee. This is challenged as per ground no. 1 and 2 of the appeal. However, we hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
