It is presumed that the hundis as recovered during the survey proceedings were not genuine in that situation the amount that was reflected on such hundis cannot to be taken as income of the assessee. Therefore the incidence of tax would be on the unexplained cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee. In thiscasethe amount surrendered by the assessee is higher than what it was found to be unexplained cash deposits in its bank account. Therefore there is no infirmity in the order giving set off of the maturity amount. It is however further clarified that we have not expressed our view regarding genuineness of hospital receipts being invested in hundis as surrendered by one of the partner of the assessee firm.
Our finding is purely based on the material placed before us. Ld. PCIT has not brought any material suggesting that the amounts so surrendered by the partner of the firm is related to proceed of crime.
We have perused rules andcaselawsas relied on by the Ld. counsel for the assessee. We do not find any infirmity into the action of the assessing officer for granting depreciation @ 40%. Therefore, this ground of the Ld. Pr. CIT is also not sustainable for affirming the action u/s 263 of the Act.
25. Lastly, Ld. Pr. CIT revised the order on the ground that the assessing officer has allowed expenditure of salary amount to Rs. 4,75,90,791/- without verifying whether TDS as per provisions of the Income Tax was made or not. It is stated that the details of TDS was duly filed in support of this contention. The assessee drew our attention to paper book pages 115-116 of the paper book and also pages no. 750-764, therefore, it cannot be inferred that the assessing officer was simply allowed as not verified the tax deducted at source. This ground of Ld. Pr. CIT is also not sustainable on the facts and material on records.
Sec. 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961—Revision - When the AO had adopted one of the courses permissible and available to him, and this has resulted in loss to Revenue; or two views were possible and the AO has taken one view with which the CIT may not agree; the said orders cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. In such matters, the CIT must give a finding that the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law and, therefore, the order is erroneous. He must also show that prejudice is caused to the interest of the Revenue. - BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE V/s PR. CIT - [2020] 23 ITCD Online 109 (ITAT-INDORE)
It is presumed that the hundis as recovered during the survey proceedings were not genuine in that situation the amount that was reflected on such hundis cannot to be taken as income of the assessee. Therefore the incidence of tax would be on the unexplained cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee. In thiscasethe amount surrendered by the assessee is higher than what it was found to be unexplained cash deposits in its bank account. Therefore there is no infirmity in the order giving set off of the maturity amount. It is however further clarified that we have not expressed our view regarding genuineness of hospital receipts being invested in hundis as surrendered by one of the partner of the assessee firm.
Our finding is purely based on the material placed before us. Ld. PCIT has not brought any material suggesting that the amounts so surrendered by the partner of the firm is related to proceed of crime.
We have perused rules andcaselawsas relied on by the Ld. counsel for the assessee. We do not find any infirmity into the action of the assessing officer for granting depreciation @ 40%. Therefore, this ground of the Ld. Pr. CIT is also not sustainable for affirming the action u/s 263 of the Act.
25. Lastly, Ld. Pr. CIT revised the order on the ground that the assessing officer has allowed expenditure of salary amount to Rs. 4,75,90,791/- without verifying whether TDS as per provisions of the Income Tax was made or not. It is stated that the details of TDS was duly filed in support of this contention. The assessee drew our attention to paper book pages 115-116 of the paper book and also pages no. 750-764, therefore, it cannot be inferred that the assessing officer was simply allowed as not verified the tax deducted at source. This ground of Ld. Pr. CIT is also not sustainable on the facts and material on records.
Sec. 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961—Revision - When the AO had adopted one of the courses permissible and available to him, and this has resulted in loss to Revenue; or two views were possible and the AO has taken one view with which the CIT may not agree; the said orders cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. In such matters, the CIT must give a finding that the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law and, therefore, the order is erroneous. He must also show that prejudice is caused to the interest of the Revenue. - BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE V/s PR. CIT - [2020] 23 ITCD Online 109 (ITAT-INDORE)