2017 (12) TMI 580 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal affirms revisional jurisdiction under section 263, grants relief to assessee, deletion of unjustified income additions.

Neha S. Saney Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-22 And Income Tax Officer 28 (2) (3), Mumbai

The tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax's exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 263, dismissing the assessee's appeal. ... Revision u/s 263 - seized material revealed unexplained investment - as per assessee made solely on the basis of entries found in loose papers which were in possession of third party - Held that:- As perused the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record. Upon perusal of the same, we find that the additions have been made solely on the basis of entries found in loose papers seized from a third party. No cogent material has been placed on record by Ld. AO to corroborate the same. The statement / material procured from third party was being used against the assessee and hence the onus was on revenue to corroborate the same particularly when the assessee vehemently denied having made any cash payment to the concerned party, Further, considering cash payment, the value of the property far exceeded the stamp duty valuation. Therefore, finding the conclusions of Ld. CIT(A) quite logical, we dismiss revenue’s appeal. Issues:1. Validity of exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax.2. Relief provided to the assessee in the consequential order passed u/s 143 read with Section 263.Issue 1: Validity of exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax:The appeal arose from the invocation of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax. The Ld. CIT quashed the original assessment order and directed a fresh assessment due to information received post the initial assessment. The dispute centered around the purchase of a shop jointly by the assessee and another party, with alleged cash payment not reflected in the original assessment. The Ld. AR argued that the original assessment was thorough and not erroneous, while the Ld. DR contended that the unreported cash payment warranted revision under sec 263. The tribunal found that the seized material regarding the cash payment was not considered in the original assessment, leading to the conclusion that the original order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal challenging the invocation of jurisdiction u/s 263.Issue 2: Relief provided to the assessee in the consequential order passed u/s 143 read with Section 263:Following the directions u/s 263, the Ld. AO made additions to the assessee's income, which were later contested successfully before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) found that the additions were based solely on entries from seized papers without further corroboration. The Ld. CIT(A) noted discrepancies in the valuation of the property and the alleged cash payment, leading to the direction to delete the additions. The revenue appealed this decision, arguing that the seized material justified the additions. However, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence to support the additions. The tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reasoning logical and dismissed the revenue's appeal, thereby affirming the relief provided to the assessee in the consequential order passed u/s 143 read with Section 263.In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the invocation of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax and dismissed the assessee's appeal. Additionally, the tribunal affirmed the relief granted to the assessee in the consequential order, dismissing the revenue's appeal.