CIT(A) not justified in setting aside AO order, as due inquiries were made by it
CIT(A) not justified in setting aside AO order, as due inquiries were made by it
"Assessee filed return declaring total income. Notice u/s 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was issued by AO. On appeal, reassessment proceedings u/s 147 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) initiated by AO was dropped by CIT(A) . On appeal ITAT held, not the case that AO has not made enquiry before reaching conclusion. Thus, CIT(A) was not justified in setting aside its order which has been made after proper enquiries into facts & circumstances of case. Hence, order of CIT was set aside & of AO was restored."-500253
Facts in Brief:
1. Assessee filed return of income declaring total income at `15,57,312/-.
2. Notice under section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was issued by AO.
3. Reassessment proceedings under section 147 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) initiated by AO was dropped CIT (A) on appeal.
On appeal ITAT held a under:
4. CIT was not justified in setting aside the order of Assessing Officer which has been made after proper enquiries into the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly the order of CIT is set aside and that of Assessing Officer is restored. Thus, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
RELEVANT PARAS OF JUDGMENT ARE AS UNDER:
6. In the light of facts emerging from the records that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous so as to prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Therefore, show cause notice ITA No. 3318/Mum/2014 Smt. Anita Ashwin Nagda was issued to the assessee. After considering the response on behalf of assessee CIT set aside the order passed by Assessing Officer by invoking provisions of section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961).
7. Same has been opposed before us on behalf of assessee, inter alia, submitting that the CIT was not justified in invoking provisions ofsection 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by considering the order passed by Assessing Officer for dropping proceedings under section 147 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.
8. The stand of the assessee has been that notice under section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was issued on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv.), Mumbai in reference to bogus purchase of shares, i.e. accommodation entries of long term capital gain. In response to the same assessee filed all relevant details for justification of transactions as genuine. The Department has doubted the sale but not purchase, i.e. the Department has accepted the purchase as genuine.
9. Assessee has reflected the purchase in her Balance Sheet in earlier year and the Department had never doubted the genuineness of the books. In the aforecited circumstances only because assessee bonafidely entered into share transaction with share broker would not lead to the interference that all transactions were bogus. Moreover, Assessing Officer, after considering assessee's submissions accepted ITA No. 3318/Mum/2014 Smt. Anita Ashwin Nagda the proceedings under section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961).
10. Hence the same cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. It cannot be said that Assessing Officer has not made enquiry before reaching the conclusion.
Case Reference-30 November, 2015 Anita Ashwin Nagda, Mumbai vs Assessee
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, MUMBAI
×
