Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2010-11 challenges the revision directions issued by the Pr.CIT under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Pr.CIT believed the Assessing Officer's assessment was erroneous for not verifying payments made by the assessee for his daughter's admission.
Held
The Tribunal held that the revenue's arguments supporting the revision directions were unsustainable. The Pr.CIT's action was based on a self-signed list of payees and a search statement, lacking corroborative material to substantiate alleged capitation fee and cash payments. The Tribunal noted that section 292C(1) of the Act does not apply in this case.
Key Issues
Whether the Pr.CIT was justified in issuing revision directions under Section 263 based on uncorroborated evidence and a search statement?
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 263, 132(4), 292C(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
O R D E R
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 arises against Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (in short, the “Pr.CIT(A)”), Agra- 1’s DIN & order No. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2020-21/1031700272(1) dated 23.03.2021, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Hasrat Ullah Khan 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the PCIT’s section 263 revision directions have treated the Assessing Officer “regular” assessment dated 28.12.2017 as erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue on the ground that he had failed to verify the assesse’s payment made for his daughter’s admission in M/s Santosh Medical College.
Learned CIT-DR vehemently submits that the impugned revision directions have rightly issued as the assessment herein had been reopened based on the JD(IT)’s investigation report indicating payments made by the assessee involving capitation fee etc.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions. Learned PCIT has referred to a list such alleged payments forming part of the case record that the impugned addition ought to have been made by the Assessing Officer and his failure to this effect attracts Section 263 revision jurisdiction.