TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re before him to consider and it was only after having examined these documents, he reached a conclusion that the returned income of both the assessee s was to be accepted. Of course, the AO might not have given an elaborate description of the inquires he had conducted during the course of assessment proceedings, all the same, we do not agree with the view taken by the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not carried out any inquiries. The documents on record very well prove that the AO had duly required the assessees to file the relevant details and the assessees also had filed the same and it was only after due consideration and examination of these documents before him that the AO had reached the conclusion that the assessments had to be completed without making any addition. Thus, in our considered view, the AO had exercised due dil igence and had duly applied his mind to the facts of the cases before him and, therefore, the observation of the Ld. PCIT that since there was lack of inquiry on the part of the AO, the same had rendered the assessment proceedings as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue does not hold good. AO took one of the possible views that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l agricultural land. The assessee also filed cash flow chart, copy of the bank statement, Form J as well as Jamabandi Fard. After perusing the documents, the AO noted that the source of advance payment amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- was above board and that the returned income of the assessee was accepted. 2.1 Similarly, in the case of the other assessee Shri Jagpal Singh (ITA No. 202/Chd/2021), the assessee s case also was reopened and the AO required the assessee to explain the source of advance money paid to Shri Satyapaul Jain to the tune of Rs. 35,00,000/-. In response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income declaring taxable income of 1,35,570/- and agricultural income of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The assessee also submitted before the AO that the assessee was an agriculturist and the assessee had himself approximately 22 acres of land in his name as share received in the ancestral agricultural land apart from jointly owning 117 acres of land with his family members. The assessee also filed Cash Flow Chart, copy of the Bank statement, Form J as well as Jamabandi Fard to support his contention regarding agricultural income and availability of ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assume jurisdiction u/s 263. The assumption of jurisdiction tantamount to change of opinion which is not permissible under law. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I Vs. Max India Limited. [2016] 388 ITR81 (P H). 4. BECAUSE the impugned order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law as the same has been passed without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 5. BECAUSE the objections filed by the Appellant to the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act were not decided by the Assessing Officer in clear contrast to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited Vs. ITO, r20031 259 ITR 19 (SO rendering the reopening invalid. The invalid and illegal assessment / reassessment order cannot be subject matter of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. 6. BECAUSE the Assessing Officer in the reassessment proceedings has not made any addition despite the fact that he had reasons to believe that income, chargeable to tax ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cised u/s 263 of an illegal re-opening. 2. BECAUSE the jurisdiction exercised u/s 263 of the Act was illegal as the twin conditions of s.263 of the Act were not satisfied i.e. neither the order was erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. BECAUSE the Assessing Officer after considering the material produced before it recorded its satisfaction and accepted the returned income and there was no new fact or material before the Pr. CIT to assume jurisdiction u/s 263. The assumption of jurisdiction tantamount to change of opinion which is not permissible under law. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I Vs. Max India Limited, [2016] 388 ITR 81 (P H). 4. BECAUSE the impugned order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law as the same has been passed without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 5. BECAUSE the return of income filed on 22.08.2011 having been accepted and there being no tangible material, the proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 of the Act were without jurisdiction. The order passed on the procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assumption of jurisdiction to frame the assessment was invalid. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ITA No. 5879/Del/2014). decision of the Hon'ble Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Khushi Commotrade Private Limited Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2. Kolkata (ITA No. 462/Kol/2020), the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Another Vs. Hotel Blue Moon ((2010) 3 SCC 259) and the decision of the Hon'ble Lucknow Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Shri Ravindra Khemka Vs. DCIT, Central Circle II. Kanpur (IT(SS)A No. 391/LKW/2017). 4.0 At the outset, the Ld. Sr. Advocate submitted that there had been a delay in filing these appeals before the Tribunal and drawing our attention to the applications praying for the condonation of delay, the Ld. AR submitted that the impugned orders were passed and communicated to the assesses on 16.03.2021 and the appeals had to be filed within 60 days from the said date but the same could no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been conducted by the AO. It was submitted that the AO had duly required the assessees to submit documentary evidences with respect to the cash advances made and both the assessees had duly complied with the queries raised by the AO and had submitted various documents in support of sufficiency of funds. The Ld. Sr. Advocate submitted that, therefore, it was very much apparent from the facts on record that the AO had been diligent enough the make the requisite inquires and it was only after due application of mind by the AO that he had proceeded to accept the returned income in case of both the assessees. It was further submitted by the Ld. Sr. Advocate that although, the AO might not have elaborated in the assessment orders as to what sought of inquiries he had made, all the same, the documents on record would establish that the AO had examined the issue before him at length and it was only after him being satisfied about the sufficiency of cash available with the assessees that the assessments were completed without making any additions. The Ld. Sr. Advocate also placed reliance on numerous judicial precedents to support the contention that the impugned orders had been wrongly p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gone through them and we find no reason to take a view di fferent from the view taken by the AO in this regard. Thus, from records, it is evident that the AO had an opportunity to consider these very voluminous documents that which were before him to consider and it was only after having examined these documents, he reached a conclusion that the returned income of both the assessee s was to be accepted. Of course, the AO might not have given an elaborate description of the inquires he had conducted during the course of assessment proceedings, all the same, we do not agree with the view taken by the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not carried out any inquiries. The documents on record very well prove that the AO had duly required the assessees to file the relevant details and the assessees also had filed the same and it was only after due consideration and examination of these documents before him that the AO had reached the conclusion that the assessments had to be completed without making any addition. Thus, in our considered view, the AO had exercised due dil igence and had duly applied his mind to the facts of the cases before him and, therefore, the observation of the Ld. PCIT that s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mple, when an Income-tax Off icer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Off icer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income- tax Off icer is unsustainable in law. 9.2 In our considered view, the AO took one of the possible views that the assesses had sufficient funds to make the impugned advance and the action of the AO cannot be faulted with by the Ld. PCIT only because he might have had a different view. 9.3 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del went on to observe that in case where there is in-adequate inquiry but no lack of inquiry, the CIT must give and record a finding that the order/enquiry made is erroneous and that this can happen only if an inquiry and verification is conducted by the CIT. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd (supra) also held that in most cases of alleged inadequate inquires it will be difficult to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
