2009 (12) TMI 1047 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment upheld, Commissioner's order revoked.

M/s. Sitaram J. Gavli, Silvassa Versus Income Tax Officer, Vapi Ward-3, Vapi

The Tribunal found that the assessment made by the Assessing Officer was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest. Consequently, the order ... - Issues Involved:1. Detailed verification of agricultural expenses.2. Examination of household expenses and other business income.3. Jurisdiction of CIT u/s 263 without prior notice.Summary:1. Detailed Verification of Agricultural Expenses:The assessee filed a return declaring total income, including agricultural income, which was processed u/s 143(1) and later assessed u/s 143(3). The CIT issued a show-cause notice u/s 263, proposing action due to low agricultural expenses claimed by the assessee. The assessee argued that all details were submitted and examined by the Assessing Officer (A.O.), and the assessment order should not be disturbed. The CIT, however, found the expenses unusually low and required detailed verification, citing a precedent from ITAT Ahmedabad.2. Examination of Household Expenses and Other Business Income:The CIT observed that the A.O. did not adequately verify the assessee's household expenses, income from a bar cum restaurant, and investments in land. The CIT noted discrepancies in the household expenses and the low net profit from the restaurant business, suggesting that the A.O. did not apply due diligence. The CIT also questioned the valuation of investments and potential wealth tax liability, which were not examined by the A.O.3. Jurisdiction of CIT u/s 263 Without Prior Notice:The assessee contended that the CIT u/s 263 raised issues not mentioned in the initial notice, which is beyond the CIT's jurisdiction. The assessee cited several judicial precedents to support the argument that the A.O. had examined all relevant details, and the CIT could not revise the assessment based on a change of opinion. The Tribunal found that the A.O. had indeed examined the agricultural income and expenses, and the CIT's action was based on a change of opinion, which is not permissible.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the assessment framed by the A.O. was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 was cancelled, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.