TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1638
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r.w.s. 147 on the ground that it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT erred in passing order u/s 263 without taking on record the details submitted and expecting to do impossible of bring on record the lost passport. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT erred in passing order u/s 263 relying on decision of Rampyaridevi Saraogi vs. CIT 67 ITR 84(SC) , Taradevi Aggarwal vs. CIT 88 ITR 323(SC) and Ramaswamy Chettiyar vs. CIT 220 ITR 657, 665(MAD) which are not relevant to the appellant." 3. In the instant case , proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated by AO against the assessee based on information received from Investigation wing that assessee had an operating bank account with HSBC Bank, Geneva, Switzerland. The AO while framing assessment vide orders dated 19.03.2014 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act accepted 'Nil' income declared in Return of income filed with Revenue on 18-04-2013 in response to notice dated 26-03-2013 u/s 148 of the Act. The AO also accepted Non Resident status of the assessee, vide assessment orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of Rampyari Devi Sarogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84(SC) , Tara Devi Agarawal v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323(SC) and K.A.Ramaswamy Chettiar v. CIT (1996) 220 ITR 657, 665(Mad.) . The Pr. CIT observed that the AO should have asked for details of assessee stay in India along with documentary evidences and the same should have been thoroughly verified , which was not done by AO. The Pr. CIT observed that AO simply placed the submissions made by the assessee on record and the assessment was completed simply taking status of the assessee as 'Non-resident' as per claim of the assessee. Thus, the assessment order dated 19.03.2014 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was held to be erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on the said issue and was set aside by Pr. CIT vide orders dated 16.03.2016 passed u/s 263 of the Act and directions were issued to AO for deciding the issue afresh, after due verification. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.03.2016 passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that challenge in present appeal is to the order dated 16.03.2016 passe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n re-assessment proceedings submitted that she is an old lady of 74 years suffering from arthritics. It was submitted that she resided in Bahrain for more than 40 years and accordingly was Non-Resident during the previous year relevant to the impugned assessment year 1996-97. It was submitted that since she was Non-resident at that time, she was under no obligation to file return of income with Revenue during the impugned assessment and hence no return of income was originally filed by her for the impugned assessment year with Revenue . In re-assessment proceeding , she filed return of income declaring 'Nil' Income, under protest. It was submitted that she is not able to recollect transaction for assessment year 1996-97 nor she had any bank statement or any other documents of those times to help her recollect the transactions. It was submitted that from the assessment year 2009-10, she was filing return of income in India as 'resident'. It was submitted that in 2007, in Bahrain , the assessee lost her passport which bore the number Z003983 issued on 26- 12-2006, which is reflected in the present passport issued at Bahrain on 09- 01-2012 which referred to old passport dated 11.12.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he contentions of the assessee without verifications and enquiry. Thus, it is a case which is not suffering from inadequate enquiry but rather the re-assessment is vitiated by complete lack of enquiry wherein the AO chose not to make any enquiry or verifications whatsoever . The AO while passing re-assessment order dated 19-03-2014 did not made any enquiry and merely accepted the contentions of the assessee without any verification and enquiry. The re-assessment order dated 19-03- 2014 passed by the AO thus cannot be upheld as it is not based on any cogent material on record to substantiate that assessee was infact non resident in the relevant year as per provisions of Section 6 of the Act and also even if she is held to Non Resident , there was no income falling within purview of Section 5(2) of the Act to take her out of clutches of taxability as provided under provisions of the Act. Thus, the assessment order of the AO cannot be sustained as it is erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and was rightly set aside by Ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act. The AO even did not brought on record whether the assessee was in-fact holding bank account with HSBC , Geneva or n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l [filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988], the powers of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend [and shall be deemed always to have extended] to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal.] [Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. ] [(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trial Company Limited v. CIT (2000)109 Taxman 66 (SC) held that if the AO has accepted the entry in the statement of account filed by the taxpayer without making enquiry and application of mind , the said order of the AO shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In our considered opinion, the facts of the case of the instant case are similar to the facts in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Limited(supra) whereby no enquiry/verification is made by AO whatsoever with respect to residential status of the assessee as well as his holding of the bank account in Switzerland with HSBC at Geneva during relevant previous year and the same was accepted based on submissions of the assessee without application of mind as well without any verification/enquiry being made by the AO. Thus, in our considered view learned Pr. CIT rightly invoked provisions of Section 263 of the Act for setting aside re-assessment order dated 19-03-2014 passed by AO being erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, as no enquiry was made by AO as well there was no application of mind while all the submissions of the assessee were accepted without a....