AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 730
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n passing the Revisionary Order under S. 263 of the Act when the original assessment order passed by the A. 0. cannot be branded as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of revenue since the perusal of the said assessment reveals that the full investigation was made calling for the entire information needed for framing the assessment. The Revisionary order is not sustainable in law. It be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the A. 0. made the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act dt. 09-09- 2011 after full application of mind the way the I. T. Act, 1961 requires. The A. O. had considered the entire information submitted by the assessee as mentioned in the assessment order that "in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n behalf of assessee 25/03/21 None appeared on behalf of assessee 19/05/21 None appeared on behalf of assessee 06/07/21 None appeared on behalf of assessee 18/08/21 None appeared on behalf of assessee 05/10/21 M.K.Kulkarni appeared but case adjourned 23/12/21 None appeared on behalf of assessee 11/03/22 None appeared on behalf of assessee 12/04/22 None appeared on behalf of assessee 04/05/22 None appeared on behalf of assessee 2.2 Therefore, we left with no option except to decide the case after hearing the submissions of learned Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and on the basis of material available on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... To invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, the Learned Commissioner of Income tax has to prove only two things that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. There is no dispute on the fact that the assessee has introduced cash of Rs.7,00,000/- as capital in the firm. Prima facie, enough cash was not available with the assessee to introduce as capital. The Assessing Officer had not verified it. During the hearing before the ld.CIT, the assessee submitted that he had taken Loan of Rs.20,61,250/- from Life Insurance Corporation of India. However, the ld.CIT observed that the explanation submitted by the assessee was not acceptable. 3.2 We agree with the ld.CIT, that the explanation of the assessee th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case (supra), the assessee had initially claimed additional expenses of 30% of the gross professional receipts (Rs. 3.17 Crores). The AO required the assessee to file requisite details. At that stage, the assessee resisted furnishing details by submitting that such details related to his security and any disclosure might be detrimental to his security. Then, by letter dated 13-3-2004, the assessee, asserted that his claim was allowable but since it will not be feasible to substantiate the same, such claim may be treated as withdrawn. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee under section 69C of the said Act as to why these additional expenses claimed not to be treated as an unexplained expenditure. Such withdrawal was acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nto consideration the reasoning of the CIT, we feel that the ITAT was not justified in interfering with the CIT's order, since, the twin conditions prescribed under section 263 of the said Act were fulfilled. Besides, the CIT, by the impugned order, had quite fairly, granted the assessee an opportunity of being heard whilst directing the AO to verify the claim of the assessee in respect of the allowability of the expenditure and carry forward of the loss of Rs. 1,78,57,950/- in accordance with law. In similar circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Daniel Merchants P. Ltd. (supra), upheld that order of the Commissioner which had directed the AO to carry a thorough and detailed inquiry. 31. For all the afores....