TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed: Importance of Accurate Assessment and Correct Application of Tax Law</h1> <h3>Puneet Jain Versus Pr. CIT Ghaziabad</h3> Puneet Jain Versus Pr. CIT Ghaziabad - TMI Issues:1. Jurisdiction of CIT(A) under section 263 of the Act2. Validity of assessment framed under section 147 r.w.s. 143 (3) of the ActIssue 1: Jurisdiction of CIT(A) under section 263 of the ActThe appeal was against the order of the Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad dated 18.03.2020 framed under section 263 of the Act. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 and issuing directions to the AO against the valid assessment framed under section 147 r.w.s. 143 (3) of the Act. The Pr. CIT issued a notice citing that the AO failed to confront the assessee regarding the legal situation of opting for the presumptive scheme of section 44 AD of the IT Act, 1961. The Pr. CIT concluded that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as it did not consider that section 44AD does not apply to commission agents. The Pr. CIT's decision was upheld, dismissing the appeal.Issue 2: Validity of assessment framed under section 147 r.w.s. 143 (3) of the ActThe facts of the case revealed that the original return of income was filed declaring income of Rs.159880/-. The assessment was completed after initiating proceedings under section 147 of the Act, with the assessee explaining cash deposits in the bank account as sale proceeds of goods. The AO accepted the revised return treating the cash deposit as business receipt under section 44 AD of the Act. However, it was found that section 44AD does not apply to commission agents, making the assessment order erroneous in law. The AO did not examine the cash deposit, rendering the assessment order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Pr. CIT rightfully assumed jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.The judgment highlighted the importance of correct application of tax provisions and the duty of the AO to make necessary inquiries to ascertain true facts. The decision emphasized that errors in assessment orders that are prejudicial to the revenue's interest can be rectified under section 263 of the Act. The case serves as a reminder for assessing officers to diligently apply the law to avoid erroneous assessments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
