2022 (9) TMI 457

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts of the case are that based on information regarding purchase of plot amounting to Rs. 11,50,000/-, the assessee's case was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act and, subsequently, in response to the said notice, the return of income was filed declaring taxable income at Rs. 2,14,160/-. During the course of such assessment proceedings, on being required to explain the contents of an agreement to sell, the assessee submitted before the AO that no agreement to purchase any property, (specifically the plot under question measuring 200 sq. yards.), from one Shri Nihal Singh, jointly with the husband Shri Inderjit Singh Singh had taken place in the captioned assessment year and further that the purchase was executed on 25.03.2013 and the payments were also were made at that point of time. It was submitted before the AO that the said transaction took place in assessment year 2013-14 and evidences were filed before the AO in that regard. In view of the submissions of the assessee, the AO accepted the returned income. 2.1. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT issued a show cause notice under section 263 of the Act and it was pointed out by the Ld. PCIT during the proceedin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the Registry of the Tribunal has pointed out that there was a delay of 205 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal. It was submitted that the due date for filing of the appeal was 03.05.2020 whereas a country-wide lockdown has been announced on 22.03.2020 in view of the Covid-19 situation. It was further submitted that the appeal was filed on 24.11.2020 when the Covid-19 situation in the country had improved a little. He further placed reliance on the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in (2021) 432 ITR 206 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had directed that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceedings, the period from March 15,2020 till March 14, 2021 shall stand excluded. It was submitted that in view of this order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, there was no actual delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. CIT DR did not refute the contentions of the Ld. AR vis-à-vis the issue of condonation of delay. 5. Accordingly, looking into the facts of the cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....idering the facts and circumstances, which were identical both in the case of the assessee as well as her husband, were dropped by the AO. Our attention was drawn to the assessment order in the case of the assessee's husband in this regard. 6.4. The Ld. AR relied on numerous judicial precedents to support his contention that where the AO has passed an assessment order after due application of mind and after duly considering the various evidences and documents, the Ld. CIT would not be justified in resorting to revisionary proceedings under 263 of the Act. It was submitted that the AO had accepted the returned income only after due application of mind and verification of facts. 6.5. It was further argued by the Ld. AR that even on the principle of consistency, the impugned order does not survive as identical issue in the case of the husband had been accepted with the AO dropping the re-assessment proceedings and the Ld. PCIT choosing not to initiate revisionary proceedings in the case of the husband. 7. Per Contra, the Ld. CIT DR argued that the AO had erred in not considering the statement of the assessee wherein she had admitted that the payment of Rs. 11,50,000/- had....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dgment in the case of ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi), wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has ruled that one has to keep in mind the distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry and further if any inquiry was found to be inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass the order under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. Further, the Ld. PCIT has not pointed out as to what further inquiries were required to be made and how without those inquiries, the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous in so far as being prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 8.3. We are also conscious of the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CITR (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and also the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Unique Autofelts (P) Ltd. (2009) 30 DTR 231, in which, it has been held as under:- "5. From the finding of the Tribunal, it is clear that the assessee had given proper explanation by filing the necessary confirmations view of such a finding, the Tribunal rightl....