What the profits tax tribunal ordered
The income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, has brushed off all four appeals filed using Virbhadra Singh and his LIC agent Anand Chauhan of Sanjauli in Shimla in opposition to the orders exceeded beneath Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12.
Anand becomes managing Virbhadra’s Shrikhand Orchards in Damali.
In a 133-page order, the Tribunal Bench comprising RS Syal, Accountant Member, and IC Sudhir, Judicial Member, said, “This is a case of no inquiry carried out by using the assessing officer before finalizing the evaluation.”
Tribune News Carrier
Chandigarh, December 17
The income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, in its order on December eight, has dismissed all four appeals filed by using Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh and his LIC agent Anand Chauhan of Sanjauli in Shimla against the orders exceeded under Phase 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to evaluation years 2009-10 to 2011-12.
Anand turned into coping with Virbhadra’s Shrikhand Orchards in Damali.
In a 133-web page order, the Tribunal Bench comprising RS Syal, Accountant Member, and IC Sudhir, Judicial Member, said, “That is a case of no inquiry carried out by using the assessing officer before finalizing the evaluation.”
The Tribunal referred to, “We fail to understand as to how the assessment order accepting the genuineness of sporting out the agricultural operations and earning a high income in such instances may be considered as an order made after proper inquiry as has been canvassed with the aid of the assessee. It is a case of a patent non-software of mind via the assessing officer to the records, loudly calling for in-depth research. In our taking into consideration opinion, the CIT changed into absolutely justified in setting apart the evaluation order and directing the AO to border a sparkling evaluation.”
“In the result, all appeals are dismissed,” the Bench dominated.
The case records are that Virbhadra Singh filed the original return of profits on July 29, 2010, asserting the whole income of Rs 44, sixty-seven,584 plus agricultural income of Rs 15 lakh. A observation dated August 24, 2011, beneath Phase 143(2) of the IT Act for scrutiny assessment served him. Within the revised return on March 2, 2012, the full earnings of Rs forty-four,67,584 plus agricultural profits of Rs 2,80,ninety-two,500. The assessment in this example became completed beneath Section 143(3) of the Act on March 28, 2013, on the earnings declared Within the revised go back.
On perusal of facts, the CIT found that the assessment became finished in a recurring and informal way without making any effective inquiry. Abe aware underneath Segment 263 was issued. After exciting objections and replies from the assessee, the CIT came to preserve that the assessing officer (AO) passed an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the sales, inter alia, on the floor that the revision of the return become wrongly universal, accounting principles have been wrongly considered and standard inasmuch because the agricultural income turned into not declared on the premise of a mercantile device of accounting, being, the approach accompanied by way of Virbhadra Singh, My general.
Virbhadra had claimed that it had been putting forward its income on the idea of the mercantile machine, and whilst he finalized its accounts with Chauhan, he got here to know about its additional income and, as a consequence, filed the revised go back.
“As in keeping with the statistics on the report, earning of additional earnings of Rs 2.65 crore shown In the revised go back become already in the information of the assessee because the same become collected, acquired and invested using the assessee in LIC policies during the economic year itself,” the Tribunal stated.
Virbhadra had invested Rs three, eighty-four,ninety-two,500 in LIC regulations, whereas additional income declared Inside the revised return became only Rs 2,65,92,500. The AO had similarly failed to enquire from the assessee approximately the supply of Rs 1.19 crore invested in LIC guidelines over and above the extra earnings declared Inside the revised go back.
“The AO had blindly ordinary the agricultural income of the assessee through relying upon the announcement of Chauhan as well as MoU between Virbhadra Singh and Chauhan for maintaining the orchards without making any inquiry about the bills, vouchers, books of accounts and their authenticity on the subject of agriculture profits declared by using Virbhadra. So the AO relied upon the self-made inner documents between him and his agent,” the Tribunal remarked.
It stated, “Because the benefit of agriculture profits changed into claimed via the assessee, so the onus was at the assessee to establish the learning of agriculture profits with the help of genuine payments, vouchers, files, books of accounts and their authenticity. The assessee can not store himself through actually pointing out that statistics have been maintained by using his agent/manager.”