TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1555
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the course of assessment proceedings. 2. Assessee is an individual engaged in the business of civil contracts filed return of income admitting an income of Rs. 52,98,910/- during the year. In the assessment proceedings U/s. 143(3), AO examined the cash deposits in the bank account and also turnovers as shown by assessee on the basis of the TDS certificates in the Books of Accounts and arrived at the gross contract receipts at Rs. 13.22 Crores. Rejecting the Books of Accounts, AO estimated income at 5%, as these contract receipts are sub-contract basis. Accordingly, the business income was determined at Rs. 66,11,712/- and after considering other incomes and deductions, total income was assessed at Rs. 69,16,742/- vide order dt. 13-03-20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Savings Bank A/c. He also did not agree stating that there was no certificate of the bank as contested by the AR on the record. Therefore, he was of the opinion that assessment order was finalized without proper examination. On the issue of excess credit of TDS, Ld. Pr.CIT was of the opinion that AO has erroneously given credit and as assessee conceded the difference of Rs. 11,535/-. AO overlooked this amount, even though it is negligible amount. Accordingly, he directed the AO to do the assessment afresh after setting aside the order U/s. 263. 4. Assessee is aggrieved and raised the following grounds: "2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appropriate the fact that the Assessing Officer has already examined all th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee is not maintaining any other SB A/c or Current A/c. Ld. Pr.CIT mistook the certificate filed before him as that on one filed before AO to state that it was not on record, whereas it is only clarification given before the AO. It was further submitted that AO deputed Inspector to the bank and ascertained that there is only one account. Ld. Counsel also placed on record the copies of AIR transactions stated to have been received by the Department. It was pointed out that both the transaction slips referred to the same account and same RRR number and the same names of joint holders. In one slip it was shown as Kalagara Srinivasa Rao, as party one, whereas in other slip, it was shown as Kalagara Rajyalaxmi as party one. The PAN reflect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... far as AIR data is concerned, there is only cash deposits of Rs. 51,36,000/- in the a/c with Axis Bank which was assessee's business account, the transactions of which were already accounted for. As can been seen from the data slips received by the AO from the bank, it refers to the same bank account and the transaction amount but the details were sent twice, as assessee's account is a joint account with his wife. In fact AO issued a show cause notice letter dt. 04-02-2013, for which assessee replied on 25-02-2013. Ld. Pr.CIT was not correct in stating that AO has not examined vide the notice U/s. 142(1) dt. 03-07- 2012. He simply ignored the subsequent notice available on record and therefore, we are of the opinion that the opinion expres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 263 merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of lack of inquiry that such a course of action would be open. An assessment order made by the Income Tax Officer cannot branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately. There must be some prima facie material on record to show that the tax which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation, a lesser tax than was just, has been imposed. The power of the Commissioner u/s 263(1) is not limited only to the material which was available before the AO and in order to protect the interests of the....