TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instant issue as well. We thus quote Malabar Industrial Co. [ 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] that lack of such an inquiry during the assessment itself renders the same to be an erroneous one causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue. We accordingly affirm the Learned PCIT s revision directions qua the instant former issue. PCIT s directions regarding application of section 269(SS) r.w.s 271D penalty - DR could hardly dispute that there is no loan agreement between the assesses and Mr. Bagul which could attract the forming penal provision as such a seized document indeed carries presumption of correctness u/s 292(c ) of the Act. We therefore reverse the impugned revision direction to this effect in para 7 in very terms. Ordere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee. In response to the notice u/s. 148, the assessee firm filed its ROI on 25.04.2017 showing total income of Rs. 2,74,09,185/- which included cash amount of Rs.25,00,000/- received from one Shri Sagar Bagul for purchase of flat. However, it is seen from the computation that the assessee claimed a total deduction of Rs. 2,74,09,185/- (which was originally Rs. 2,49,09,185/-) u/s. 80IB(10). The Assessing officer had allowed the deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) on the entire amount of Rs.2,49,09,184/- and accepted the return of income, which included the cash component of Rs.25,00,000/-. Since the assessee was eligible for 100% deduction u/s. 80IB(10), it is incomprehensible and without justification why the firm did not include the cash compo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidences were not found to indict the assessee in receiving the on money in respect of any other flat. Moreover, the Assessing Officer had not recorded the statement of the assessee as well as Shri Sagar Bagul on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing whether the amount received in cash was a part of the sale or otherwise. Without conducting the aforesaid enquiry, the AO arrived at the conclusion that the receipt of cash was a part of turnover and qualify for deduction u/s. 80IB(10) to the prejudices of revenue. The findings per se prima facie are erroneous in the absence of cogent evidence placed on record. 7. In view of the above, the assessment order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though the assessee has claimed section 80IB (10) deduction of Rs.25 lakhs as per the seized documents(supra), the fact remains that the alleged payee Mr. Sagar Bagul had nowhere purchased the corresponding residential unit so as to satisfy the clinching derived from condition having first degree nexus in light of hon ble apex court s landmark decision in Liberty India V/s CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218(SC). This is indeed coupled with the fact that the assessee also could not invite our attention to the Assessing Officers detailed inquiries on the instant issue as well. We thus quote Malabar Industrial Co. V/s. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) that lack of such an inquiry during the assessment itself renders the same to be an erroneous one causing pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
