9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passing order u/sec. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). 3. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of car rental services, filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 30/03/2016 declaring total income of Rs. 3,43,540/-. The order of assessment was framed u/sec. 143(3) of the Act on 28/11/2016 accepting the returned income of the assessee. Subsequent to the assessment, it was observed by the ld. PCIT that during the year, the assessee had a turnover of Rs. 1,35,48,457/- and as per sec. 44AB, the assessee was required to get its accounts audited, which it had not done. Further, it was also observed that assessee placed reliance on the provisions of sec. 44AD to e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Department on the same facts and circumstances to the assessee. Therefore, this is a case of possible view and when two views are possible, it is not correct for the ld. PCIT to invoke revisionary jurisdiction holding the assessment to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Ld.AR further submitted that since they have not audited the books of account, the most appropriate provision was sec.44AD have been applied and, therefore, they have estimated the profit @8% of its total receipts. 5. Per contra, ld.DR vehemently opposed the contention of the ld.AR by submitting that admittedly the turnover of the assessee during the year was more than Rs. 1 crore and as per sec.44AB, it was mandatory to get accounts audited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only failed to get its accounts audited, but while taking benefit and recourse u/sec. 44AD, it had even deducted the remuneration paid to partners, which is not allowable as deduction u/sec. 44AD of the Act. We are also not inconformity with the argument of ld.AR saying that there emerges two possible views for the fact that in the subsequent assessment year 2015-16, on the same facts and circumstances, the Department had accepted the action of the assessee, but in our considered view the principles of res judicata is not applicable to income tax proceedings and every year has to be seen and adjudicated separately. We are inconformity with the submissions of the ld.DR that the mandatory requirement of sec.44AB, has to be complied wherever s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
