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

We also peruse the decision of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case ofJawahar Bhattacharjee(supra) relied upon by ld CIT DR, which is rendered in respect of section 54F of the Act. In this case, it was held that not applying mind to the relevant material would certainly be ' erroneous' assessment warranting exercise and revisional jurisdiction. But in the present case, on the basis of foregoing discussion, we are compelled to hold that the AO had conducted sufficient and adequate enquiry on all three issues and it is not a case of no enquiry or insufficient enquiry. Thus, we respectfully hold that the benefit of the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in the case ofJawahar Bhattacharejee(supra) is not available for the revenue in the present case having distinct and distinguishable facts and circumstances. Therefore, this decision will not help to the revenue in the present case.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961—Revision - Acceptance of explanation of the assessee by the AO is proper and reasonable which cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in absence of any other adverse materials brought on record during proceedings u/s 263.

Facts: The effective grievance of the assessee is that ld Pr. CIT is not justified in holding that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

Held, that payment of commission has direct nexus with the services rendered by the recipient of commission and it was paid against their contribution in the enhancement of business of assessee. Thus, it was to be held that the commission has been paid for the business purpose and the AO was right in allowing the same after due verification and examination through proper enquiry. On the issue of introduction of capital, from the copy of notice and reply to the same by the assessee before the AO, it is discernible that the AO show caused the assessee regarding eight amounts which were explained by the assessee. Therefore, acceptance of explanation of the assessee by the AO in this regard is also justified, proper and reasonable, which cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in absence of any other adverse materials brought on record during proceedings u/s 263. - SHAILESH KUMAR GANDHI V/s PR. CIT - [2020] 183 ITD 567 (ITAT-CUTTACK)

We also peruse the decision of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case ofJawahar Bhattacharjee(supra) relied upon by ld CIT DR, which is rendered in respect of section 54F of the Act. In this case, it was held that not applying mind to the relevant material would certainly be ' erroneous' assessment warranting exercise and revisional jurisdiction. But in the present case, on the basis of foregoing discussion, we are compelled to hold that the AO had conducted sufficient and adequate enquiry on all three issues and it is not a case of no enquiry or insufficient enquiry. Thus, we respectfully hold that the benefit of the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in the case ofJawahar Bhattacharejee(supra) is not available for the revenue in the present case having distinct and distinguishable facts and circumstances. Therefore, this decision will not help to the revenue in the present case.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Facts: The effective grievance of the assessee is that ld Pr. CIT is not justified in holding that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.