Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
per se justified and mandated further enquiry or investigation but the Assessing Officer had erroneously not undertaken the same. However, the said finding must be clear, unambiguous and not debatable. It is evident that the assessee, by not responding to the notice issued us 263 has unwarranted any further enquiry on this issue. • In CIT v Amitabh Bachchan (2016] 384 IT 200 (SC) the Apex court held that Section 263 does not require any specific show cause notice detailing specific grounds on which revision of assessment order is tentatively being proposed. Commissioner is free to exercise his jurisdiction on all issues, provided an opportunity of hearing is afforded to assessee to contest facts on basis of which he had exercised revisional jurisdiction, Even if AO has applied his mind, CIT may initiate 263 as he was of the view that the matter needed further investigation. the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. Pr. CIT 386 ITR 162 (Cal) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Daniel Merchants Private Limited vs. ITO pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29.11.2017, that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order us. 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing officer did not make any proper enquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee.”
We found the decision of honorable jurisdictional high court in the case of CIT Vs. Ballarpur industries Ltd. (2017) 85 Taxmann.com 10 (Bom.) relevant on this issue and ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Sify Software Ltd. v/s ACIT (2017) 80 Taxmann.com 273 also followed the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (supra).
In view of the above facts and judicial pronouncements we are of the opinion that matter of revenue reconciliation and reimbursement of expenses was not done at all to ascertain the income properly. We sustain the order of Ld. PCIT as he has to relied upon the records of assessment proceedings only as assessee has not turned up to attend the hearing u/s. 263 on the subject matter. 15. In these terms we sustain the order of Ld. PCIT with a safeguard that a proper opportunity of being heard and represent the matter before AO to the assessee. Assessee is directed to co-operate with the AO and bring on record the relevant evidences to substantiate his claims like relevant agreements, role of each party i.e. Payer, payee and agent, compliances with reference to T.D.S etc. 16. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd day of January, 2023.