Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) has grossly erred in revising the order passed by the Assessing Officer without appreciating that the order was not erroneous, much less prejudice to the interest of the revenue to warrant revision.
4. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) was not justified in passing the order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed after proper enquiry on the facts and circumstances of the case and following the Jurisdictional High Court judgement in case of Lancy Constructions.
7. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) erred in revising the order passed by the Assessing Officer without following the later judgement of Jurisdictional High Court in case of Lancy Constructions and Bangalore ITAT judgement in case of Corner stone Properties Pvt Ltd. Vs ACIT.
8. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) erred in revising the order of the Assessing Officer u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the order of the Assessing Officer has stands merged with order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in all respect and for all the ITA No.1376-1379/Bang/2019 issues as the power of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are co- extensive and co-terminus with the powers of the Assessing Authority.
"It is evident from your above statement that the information about the cheque and cash payment in purchase of the properties was ITA No.1376-1379/Bang/2019 available before Your Honour only through our letter dated 15/11/2016 but not during the course of search. Such information or document were not found and seized in the premises of the Appellant. When there is no such document or evidence was not found during the course of search then the assessment which has been completed and which has not been abetted. The Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to interfere the completed assessment u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Karnataka High Court. in case of CIT Vs Lancy Constructions 380 ITR 168 held that any incriminating evidence found during the course of search is a pre condition to enable the Assessing Officer to interfere in the completed assessment u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the above stated judgment, Delhi and Bombay High Court judgment which are supporting the view of the Karnataka High Court judgment, the addition on account of section 40A(3), the information regarding this made available during the course of assessment cannot be made basis for the addition in the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
"Para 6 - ........Merely because a search is conducted in the premises of the assessee, would not entitle the Revenue to initiate the process of reassessment, for which there is a separate procedure prescribed in the statute. It is only when. the conditions prescribed for reassessment are fulfilled that a concluded assessment can be reopened.
7. On considering the same, we are of the considered view that the reasons assigned by the Tribunal are erroneous. Firstly, the judgment reported in CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY was riot even considered in Lancy Construction's case Seconding, Lancy's case was dismissed at the stage of admission without even a notice to the Assessee. The High Court in the case of LANCY CONSTRUCTIONS, was of the view that no substantial question of law would arise for consideration in the appeal. Therefore, in the absence of any substantial question of raw, the question of admitting the appeal would be inappropriate. A judgement of the court becomes binding only when a question arises for consideration, is contested by both sides and thereafter findings are recorded by the Court. None of these conditions 1taue been fulfilled. There is no notice issued to the other side. No question of law has been determined. The appeal was dismissed, as being bereft of any substantial question of law. Therefore, the judgment reported it Lancy's case cannot he said to be applicable in law or that it is binding for any reason whatsoever. The reliance placed by the Tribunal on the judgment in Lancy's case is misplaced The judgment in Lancy's case does not render the true position in law. It cannot be considered as a precedent.