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>Assessment order not erroneous when adequate verification done within limited scrutiny framework despite PCIT's revision</h1> <h3>Avtar Singh Versus PCIT-1, Jalandhar.</h3> ITAT Amritsar allowed the appeal and quashed the revision order u/s 263 against a deceased assessee. The PCIT had treated the assessment order as ... Revision u/s 263 against dead assessee - allegation of incomplete verification of the agricultural income, thus treated the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the records, it is clear that the ld. PCIT was duly informed by the father of the assessee that the assessee died before initiation of the proceedings. Accordingly, the notice was issued to the legal heir i.e. the assessee’s son but the PAN of the assessee is mentioned in the order and passed the order relying on the PAN of deceased assessee. AO in the assessment order has received all the relevant documents related to the evidence of agricultural income. Here, we cannot say there is any absence of verification. All the documents are duly submitted during the assessment proceeding and the same documents are duly submitted before the ld. PCIT by the assessee in revisional proceeding. AO is bound by limited scrutiny in the CASS system. Respectfully considering the orders of R. K. Metal Works [1976 (12) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] the investigation by the ld. AO cannot be called ‘absence of investigation’. PCIT has not brought any material on record to show that the view taken is contrary to law or the investigation is erroneous. As relying on case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2019 (7) TMI 1449 - SUPREME COURT], eMudra [2020 (3) TMI 689 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] & Savita Kapila legal heir of Late Shri Mohinder Paul Kapila [2020 (7) TMI 441 - DELHI HIGH COURT] PCIT has erred to mention the deceased PAN in the revisional order. This is not the curable mistake from the end of revenue and caused the order nullity. In our considered view, the ld. PCIT is not justifying setting aside the order of the ld. AO. The assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous. Accordingly, the order U/s 263 of the ld. PCIT is quashed. Assessee appeal allowed. Issues:1. Validity of order u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Assessment based on agricultural income and verification process.3. Mentioning deceased PAN in the revisional order.Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of order u/s 263The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2018-19. The appellant contended that the order was bad in law and challenged the PCIT's decision to set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The PCIT had invoked revisionary powers under section 263 on the grounds of incomplete verification of agricultural income, leading to the order being deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.Issue 2: Assessment based on agricultural income and verification processThe assessment was initiated under limited scrutiny for agricultural income, with the AO considering documents provided by the assessee, including land deeds and lease agreements. The PCIT issued a notice under section 263 due to incomplete verification of agricultural income. The appellant argued that all relevant documents were submitted during the assessment proceedings, and the AO's limited scrutiny did not imply a lack of investigation. The appellant cited case laws to support the contention that mentioning the deceased PAN in the revisional order rendered it null and void.Issue 3: Mentioning deceased PAN in the revisional orderThe appellant raised objections regarding the deceased PAN being mentioned in the revisional order, citing various judgments to support the argument that such an action was legally flawed. The appellant highlighted that the legal heir had been duly informed of the proceedings, and all necessary documents were submitted for verification. The appellant argued that the PCIT's decision to set aside the assessment order was unjustified, as there was no substantive evidence to prove the assessment was erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the order passed under section 263 by the PCIT. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessment order could not be deemed erroneous and upheld the appellant's arguments regarding the deceased PAN issue and the adequacy of verification processes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
