TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1655
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondone the delay in filing of the appeals and proceed to decide the same. 4. In all these appeals, the common issue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under section 263 of the Act. In ITA No. 607/Ind/2016 the following facts are involved. 5. The company has declared loss of Rs. 15529993/- and claimed refund of Rs. 1043840/- on account of TDS. The reconciliation of 26-SS statement has not been done vis-à-vis offered in the profit and loss account. As per 26- SS statement the total receipt is Rs. 51999651/- which was shown with TDS of Rs. 1048602/- whereas the assessee has claimed TDS of Rs. 1043840/-. Therefore, there is undisclosed TDS of Rs. 4762/- and consequently it was not verified during the assessment proceedings. It was also noticed that tax deducted at source was not deposited in Government within the prescribed limit. There was delay 1 day to 240 days. Therefore, such delay is not allowable u/s 40IA of the Act. As per the information available on record, the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 542450/- in the bank during the year while completing the assessment, the cash deposited has not been verified with reference to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....That the reconciliation of receipts as per 26AS statement vis-à-vis income declared in the return of income has also not been examined in detail." 9. The Commissioner of Income Tax was of the view that in this case the assessment was made without conducting proper inquiry which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Commissioner of Income Tax relied on the following decisions in support of his conclusion :- (i) Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT; 67 ITR 84(SC) (ii) CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Limited; 242 ITR 490 (Mad.) (iii) CIT vs. Bhagwan Das; 272 ITR 367 (All.) (iv) Pradtap Footwear vs. ACIT; SOT 638 (Jab.)(Tri.) In all these cases, the Commissioner of Income Tax was of the view that the case was transferred to the Assessing Officer vide order u/s 27(1) of the Act dated 29.3.2014 passed by the then Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal, and the Assessing Officer has passed the order on 30.30.2014. Since the case was getting time barred on 31.3.2014, therefore, it is evident from record that the Assessing Officer did not make any investigation and passed the order on the basis of details available on recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Case was seleceted for scrutiny to examine huge additions made u/s 153A/143(3) for A.Y.2004- 05 to 2009-10 and order u/s 143(3) passed on 26.1.2011 on account of payments made from undisclosed sources in purchase of land. These issues were not verified in assessment PB-10 para 14-15. Purchase of lands verified. Also the relevant A.Y.2011-12 is a period after search i.e. 23.07.2009. Thus, it has no nexus with the material found in search 2 Supporting evidence for purchase of land towards cost of acquisition of building sold, resulting in capital gains not given in assessment PB 11 para 17 PB 7 Para 1,3, PB 13-14 The details were asked and verified in assessment at multiple dates. 3 Bank accounts of assessee and ledger accounts in various sister concerns were not verified in assessment PB 7 para 5, PB 8 para 10, PB 9 Para 6 & 7, Details given during assessment. All bank accounted verified. 4 Reconciliation of TDS with 26AS not given and receipts shown PB 8 para 15 Details given in assessment. ITA No. 609/Ind/2016 Sl.No. Reasons given u/s 263 Submission of Assessee 1 Land sold at Dongarpur, Gwalior. Cost of same claimed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Therefore, the CIT was justified in remanding the matter back to the file of AO vide his present order in appeal by the assessee on the ground of non-application of mind by AO and lack of enquiry by AO on the issues involved in these appeals. Hence, he prayed that the order of the CIT should be confirmed. The learned DR further submitted that in all these cases the Assessing Officer who has passed the assessment order has requested the Commissioner of Income Tax for passing order u/s 263 of the Act because the Assessing Officer did not get any time to examine and investigate the case. Moreover, as per clause (a) and (b) to Explanation 2 inserted with Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 1.6.2015 if the order is passed without making any inquiry and verification and the order is passed by allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim, such order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The learned DR relied the decisions in CIT vs. Amitach Bachan; Civil Appeal No. 5009 of 2016; Malabar Industries; CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwears P. Ltd.; 345 ITR 135; G.V. Enterprises vs. CIT; 99 ITR 375 (Del); Bhushan Steel vs. CIT; ITAT, Delhi Bench; CIT vs. Deepakkumar; 299 ITR 4....