https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768732 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768732 Revision u/s 263 - assessment order u/s 153A with regard to the issue of unexplained investment in the purchase of lands questioned - as argued once assessment order has been passed u/sec.153C of the Act with the prior approval of JCIT u/s 153D, then, the same cannot be revised u/sec.263 - HELD THAT:- The revision order passed by the PCIT is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the assessment order sought to be revised by him cannot be regarded as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue on the basis of the seized material and sworn statements relied by him. The sole seized document relied on by the PCIT in the revision order cannot be considered to be in the nature of "incriminating material" since the same merely contains the details of cheque payments made for purchase of lands at Rangareddyguda, which are routed through the books of account. The said seized document admittedly does not contain any details of cash payments made towards on-money over and above the said cheque payments. In the absence of any incriminating information in the said seized document, the same cannot be relied upon for drawing any inference regarding the quantum of on-money payments and the period during which such on-money payments were made. Consequently, the said seized document does not constitute incriminating material to facilitate any conclusion regarding payment of on-money by the appellant during the previous years relevant to AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19. Therefore, the reliance placed by the PCIT on the said seized document for the purpose of arriving at the finding that on-money payments were made during the previous years relevant to A.Ys 2017-18 and 2018-19 and for holding that the assessment order u/s 153A for A.Y 2018-19 in the case of the appellant is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue on account of failure to make addition therein towards the on-money payments made during the A.Y 2018- 19 for the purpose of revision of the said assessment order is misplaced and the same is untenable on facts. The support sought to be drawn by the PCIT from the sworn statements of Sri.J.Anirudh Reddy and Sri.M.Uday Kumar Reddy to conclude that the on-money payments in cash for purchase of Rangareddyguda lands were made to the extent of Rs. 42.80 crores and they were made during the period from June 2016 to July 2017, which falls under the A.Ys 2017-18 and 2018-19, is also not tenable, because it may be seen on perusal of the answer given by Sri.J.Anirudh Reddy to Q.No.10 that the same contained an internal contradiction. On one hand, he stated that he received on-money payments in cash as and when the land is ready for registration. On the other hand, he stated in the very next sentence that the on-money payments in cash were received during the period from June 2016 to July 2017. Since the registration of the lands at Rangareddyguda took place during the previous years relevant to A.Ys 2020-21 and 2021-22, the on-money could not have been received by him during the period from June 2016 to July 2017 going by his own averment that the cash was received as and when the lands were ready for registration. This clearly shows that the statement of Sri.J.Anirudh Reddy contained an internal contradiction, which has rendered the statement as unreliable for drawing any conclusion regarding the period during which on-money payments were made. Moreover, the claim that on-money payments in cash were received by him during the period from June 2016 to July 2017, when the facts available on record unmistakably show that the registration of the lands at Rangareddyguda took place during the previous years relevant to A.Ys 2020-21 and 2021-22, runs completely contrary to the prevailing commercial practice of making on-money payments closer to the date of registration of lands. Such a claim which is against the prevailing commercial practice needs to backed by documentary evidence in order to be considered as reliable and acceptable, which is absent in the present case. AO has adopted one of the plausible views on the basis of the seized material, sworn statements and affidavit after necessary application of mind and appreciation of evidences that the on-money payments for purchase of lands at Rangareddyguda aggregated to Rs. 32.66 crores only and that they were made during the previous year relevant to A.Y 2020-21/2021-22 while making assessments u/s 153C in the hands of the group companies which purchased the said lands. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the revision order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act for A.Y 2018-19 by adopting a different view from that of the AO is not sustainable in law, as adoption of one plausible views by the AO does not render the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. Appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530