2023 (4) TMI 525

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai -1 dated 24.03.2022 passed in terms of section 263 of the Act for the assessment year under consideration is contrary to law, facts and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The PCIT erred in assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and consequently erred in passing the revision order by directing the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment afresh without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The PCIT failed to appreciate that the order of revision under consideration was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... would be nullity in law. 9. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing." 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 09.02.2018, admitting total income of Rs. Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had admitted agricultural income of Rs. 38,89,052/-. The assessee was called upon to file necessary details including extent of land, type of crop grown, bills for sale of agricultural produce and necessary accounts. The assessee has filed certain details including the nature of agricultural activity carried out during ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted lower yield of Tomatoes which rendered the assessment order erroneous and caused prejudice to the interests of the revenue. Therefore, the PCIT called upon the assessee to submit necessary reply, if any for proposed revision of the assessment order. In response, the assessee submitted that the AO has considered necessary details and has passed best judgment assessment by obtaining certain information from public domain while estimation of agricultural income and thus, it cannot be said that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The PCIT, after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of certain facts including income admitted by the assessee in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and arrived at a current conclusion and thus, even if said conclusion is not acceptable to the PCIT, then it is not open for PCIT to invoke his jurisdiction and revise assessment order. 6. The Ld. CIT-DR, Shri. M. Rajan, referring to show cause notice issued by the PCIT submitted that, the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, because it is a clear case of lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer in the given facts and circumstances of the case, which is evident from facts brought on record by the PCIT in his show cause notice. The Ld. DR, further submitted that although, the assessee has admitted 40 Tons of Tomato yield while estimating agricultural income, but the AO has adopte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee. But in respect of Tomato crop, the PCIT disputed estimation made by the AO only for the reason that the estimation made by the AO is higher than the estimation made by the assessee. Except this, the PCIT has not brought on record any cognizant reason and also explained how the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on the issue of estimation of income from Tomato crop, is incorrect. In our considered view, when the AO has completed best judgment assessment in terms of provisions of section 144 of the Act, it is as good as the AO has applied his mind to relevant facts in right perspective of law and has taken a plausible view. Further, the view taken by the AO may not be acceptable to the PCIT. However, unless view taken b....