Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co. (P) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3084 (Pune-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 263

AO while accepting documents submitted by assessee had not conducted any specific enquiry though no explanation or any valid reason for drastic fall in returned income had been offered by assessee-company. Rather, AO only did the work of extraction of submissions of assessee and nothing else and therefore, AO had not formed any view and when no view had been taken, no enquiry had been conducted, when no reasons on facts had been placed on record, order of assessment was bound to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial order - Relevant facts not examined by AO -

Assessee company had offered an income of Rs. 2,93,68,495 on account of letting out of house properties of business centre and Kothrud properties. The same was revised to Rs. 75,28,744 before finalization of assessment by filing revised computation. No explanation or any valid reason for drastic fall in returned income had been offered by assessee-company. Pr.CIT on analyzing the facts and circumstances of case vis-a-vis assessment order held that relevant facts were not at all examined by AO and he simply accepted submissions of assessee application of mind and, therefore, assessment order was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Held: AO while accepting documents submitted by assessee had not conducted any specific enquiry as to the facts of case. There was no iota of evidence brought on record by AO justifying that there was mistake committed by assessee vis-a-vis filing of original as well as revised return of income. AO had only done the work of extraction of submissions of assessee and nothing else and therefore, AO had not formed any view and when no view had been taken, no enquiry had been conducted, when no reasons on facts had been placed on record, order of assessment was bound to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

Supported by:Rampyari Devi Sarogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) : 1968 TaxPub(DT) 135 (SC), Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) : 1973 TaxPub(DT) 389 (SC) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, Kerala State (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) : 2000 TaxPub(DT) 1227 (SC).

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : Against the assessee.

A.Y. : 2014-15

IN THE ITAT, PUNE BENCH