9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as"Act") dated 18.03.2020 for AY 2015-16 in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case 2. The learned Pr.Commissioner of Income tax failed to consider the entire objections dated 09.03.2020 filed in response the notice issued under section 263 of the Act and consequently the order passed is in violation of the principles of natural justice and required to be set aside on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax erred in invoking clause(a) to Explanation-2 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shed and the learned Pr.Commissioner of Income tax has not shown how the same leads to the order of the Assessing Officer being erroneous or prejducial to the interest of the revenue. 8. The learned Pr.Commissioner of Inocme tax is not justified in law in directing the Assessing Officer to verify to mismatch in income under the income from other sources when the details for the same were furnished and the learned Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax has not shown how the same leads to the order of the Assessing Officer being erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 9. The learned Pr.Commissioner of Income tax is not justified in law in directing the Assessing Officer to verify to mismatch in turnover when the details for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 3. The sole issue involved in these grounds is for challenging the order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.07.2016 declaring gross total income of Rs.1,64,34,650/-. The gross total income includes income from house property of Rs.51,62,700/- and income from other sources of Rs.1,12,77,875/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for verification on the following points:- i. Deduction from income from other sources ii. Interest expenses iii. Income from heads of income other than business/profession mismatch iv. Sundry creditors v. Change in annual lettable value of house property vi. Sales Turnover Mismatch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other sources. However, the total receipts as per 26AS statement is Rs.4,82,50,329/-, whereas in computation of income, assessee has considered only Rs.4,04,07,580/-. The short declaration of interest receipts needs to be verified. c. Mismatch in Turnover: It is seen from the audited financial statements that the revenue from operations being lease rent has been declared as Rs.8,59,22,550/-, however, as per 26AS statement rent received is Rs.8,63,37,610/-. The short declaration of the receipts needs to be verified. 4. Accordingly, the show-cause notice was issued to the assessee and assessee submitted reply. The ld.Pr.CIT after considering the reply and relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Deniel Merchan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no miss-match in the interest income offered to tax and he tried to reconcile the differences as observed by the ld.Pr.CIT and submitted that out of Rs. 70,90,955/- propose to be added to the income of Rs.56,07,671/ for the AY 2015-16 and the difference of Rs. 14,83,287/- as interest income offered for tax in the AY 2016-17. A sum of Rs.14,83,287/- is excess credit reflecting in Form 26AS, for which a confirmation letter from the concern party was produced. Further, he submitted in respect of miss-match in turnover, it was a difference for VAT tax. The VAT tax has been paid separately. He further submitted that after reconciling VAT tax difference, how the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... done by the AO. The AO has raised questions and replies submitted by the assessee, however from the paper book posted before us, no details pertaining to interest from ING Vysya bank was filed before the AO was accepted and passed the assessment order. We also noticed from reply submitted by the assessee before the ld.Pr.CIT that assessee had availed loan from ING Vysya Bank incurred during the FY 2005, 2006 and 2007 for construction purpose but no documents was submitted during the course of hearing before the AO and assessee has claimed it as expenditure for the interest incurred during the construction period of Rs.2,66,89,424/-, which is a 1/5th of Rs.13,34,47,122/-. We further noted that in respect of interest income, the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
