For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

Maintainability/Validity of revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 towards justification of share premium with regard to FMV of equity shares computed under ‘DCF’ method In theinstantcase there has been an information with the Department which has been passed on to the AO for verification and failure of the AO to verify the transactions in the tight of the information available makes the order erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The AO has mentioned about inputs from Investigation Wing in assessment order but has not examined absolutely anything regarding the genuinity of the transactions. The learned Principal CIT had enough material in his custody toprima facieto show that the tax which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed. Similarly, in the case ofSunbeam Autothe Court has held that in the case of lack of enquiry course of action under s. 263 is valid. In this case on the facts of the record it can be observed that the AO has not applied his mind regarding the allowability of the exemption of the long-term capital gain. This is not the case of inadequate enquiry but is a clear case of lack of enquiry which makes it different from the case ofNirav Modi(supra). Obtaining of the information about the transaction cannot be taken as akin to enquiring about the information. This is a clear case of no enquiry for which the learned Principal CIT has rightly invoked the provisions of s. 263. We also find that the learned Principal CIT has clearly brought about the error in the assessment order and has also directed the AO to take remedial action to take action as per the law after providing due opportunity to the assessee. Thus, it can be said that the learned Principal CIT has not exceeded his jurisdiction nor directed the AO to pass the assessment order in any particular way thus not interfering in the judicial function of the AO.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961— Revision— It is evident that although some materials were placed from assessee's side before the learned Principal CIT in the course of revision proceedings under s. 263 in an attempt to prove the genuineness of cash credit within the meaning of s. 68 in respect of share capital issued at premium, no such materials were placed from the assessee's side before the AO during the assessment proceedings; and further, that no effort was made by the AO to ascertain the genuineness of cash credits within the meaning of s. 68 ,thus, it was concluded that the aforesaid assessment order dt. 12th May, 2016 was passed without making inquiries or verifications which should have been made for ascertaining the genuineness of the cash credits within the meaning of s. 68. The assessment order passed by the AO without making inquiries and verifications which should have been made for ascertaining the genuineness of cash credits within the meaning of s. 68 by itself is sufficient to uphold the revisionary order passed under s. 263. When an assessment order is passed several months ahead of prescribed deadline without making enquiries and verifications which should have been made, it can be said that the order was passed without due application of mind, and in avoidable haste, and that makes a stronger case for exercise of jurisdiction under s. 263 — Rissala Décor (P) Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT [2020] 203 TTJ 521 (DEL)