SRI. NAGARAJAN RAMACHANDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PR CIT, TRIVANDRUM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 96/COCH/2021Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 November 2022AY 2016-173 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue flagged by the PCIT was not examined by the AO, constituting a case of 'no enquiry'. Therefore, the revision order was not faulted with.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed TDS credit of Rs. 9 Lacs, which was allowed by the AO. However, the corresponding income was not returned by the assessee. The PCIT initiated revision proceedings, stating the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT's revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was validly exercised when the AO had not made any enquiry on the issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 194-IA,Section 198,Section 56(2)(v)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, A.M

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.96/Coch/2021
TC/7/15

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आयकर अपील सं./ (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Nagarajan Ramachandran PCIT TC/7/152/19, Revu, E lane, Thiruvananthapuram. बनाम/ Kattachal Road, Vettamukku, Vs. Thirumala P.O, Thiruvananthapuram – 695006. �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. ACEPR-0668-M (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओरसे/ Appellant by : None ��थ� की ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri M. Rajasekhar (CIT) – Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 09-11-2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 09-11-2022 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee contest validity of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 as exercised by learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram [PCIT] vide order dated 22-03-2021 against assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 06-12-2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.

2 - 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal was proceeded with the able assistance of Ld. CIT-DR who pleaded for dismissal of the appeal. Having considered material on record, the appeal is disposed-off as under.

3.

The assessee was assessed u/s. 143(3) on 06-12-2018 accepting returned income. However, the Ld. PCIT held the order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the ground that the assessee claimed TDS credit of Rs. 9 Lacs which was allowed to the assessee. However, the corresponding income was not returned by him. The amount of TDS was deducted u/s 194-IA by the purchaser of land against capital asset of the firm M/s Aiyappas House. Since the assessee was managing partner of the firm, the title of the land was in the name of the assessee and sale deed was also executed by the assessee. The capital gains were assessed in the hands of the firm. Since the TDS amount was remitted against assessee’s PAN, the respective credit was allowed to the assessee. As per Sec.198, TDS deduction shall be deemed to be income received and as per Sec.56(2)(v), any sum of money received without consideration shall be chargeable to tax under the head Income from Other sources. Since the TDS credit was money received without any consideration, the same was to be included in the income of the assessee and taxed accordingly. Therefore, Ld. AO was directed to verify this fact and redo the assessment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. From the impugned order, it could also be seen that despite issuance of show cause notice, the assessee did not appear before revisional authority. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3 - 4. We find that the issue flagged by Ld. PCIT was not ever examined by Ld. AO. There is nothing on record which would suggest that such a query was even raised by Ld. AO. Therefore, this is a case of no enquiry and accordingly, the revision of the order could not be faulted with. We order so. 5. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 09th November, 2022.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →