RAJENDRA PREMCHAND GHODAWAT,,SANGLI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -1,, KOLHAPUR

The assessee raised many grounds in 1.1 to 1.7 amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the Pr. CIT is rightly invoked the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case.

We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Thus, the assessee called absent and set ex-parte. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the case by hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material available on record.

Heard ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The contention of ld. DR, Shri Deepak Garg is that the Pr. CIT, Kolhapur found several lapses on the part of AO during the examination of assessment record pertaining to order u/s. 143(3) of the Act passed by the AO for A.Y. 2014-15. He submits that the AO did not examine properly necessary information by calling relevant evidences from the assessee. The assessee in the assessment proceedings simply submitted that the reasons for CASS are baseless and the AO accepted the same without any proper examination. Further, he did not examine the disallowance relating to interest u/s. 14A of the Act and also other expenses claimed u/s. 37 of the Act. He argued that the AO ought to have examined the said issues by calling relevant documents for verification and the AO without bringing proper and full information on record, applicability of provisions of the Act completed assessment without proper application of mind and the Pr. CIT rightly exercised the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act.

Further, he placed on record the order dated 30-12-2019 passed by the AO in pursuance of directions of Pr. CIT under 263 proceedings. According to him, the AO disallowed Rs.66,997/- and referred to Para No. 5 and argued the disallowance of which clearly proves that there was no examination by the AO and without application of mind completed the original assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. He further argued since Pr. CIT rightly invoked jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act the preset appeal filed by the assessee against such order is to be dismissed. We note on an examination of order passed u/s. 263 of the Act together with the consequential order passed by the AO in pursuance of directions given under 263 proceedings by the Pr. CIT, we find force in the arguments of ld. DR for the reason that the Pr. CIT clearly held in his order in Page No. 1 at Para No. 2 that the case of the assessee selected for scrutiny under CASS for 8 reasons and without calling for necessary information AO completed the assessment. The disallowance made by the AO under giving effect proceedings which clearly shows the finding of Pr. CIT is correct to the effect that the AO without proper application of mind completed assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Pr. CIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act and the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.