Case Law Details
Case Name : ITO Vs Mayuri Constructions (ITAT Hyderabad)
Related Assessment Year : 2008-09
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Hyderabad
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
ITO Vs Mayuri Constructions (ITAT Hyderabad)
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business as civil contractor filed its return of income for the AY 2008-09 on 14/10/2008 declaring total income of Rs. 65,254/-. Initially, the return was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act and thereafter the assessment was completed U/s. 143(3) of the Act wherein the assessee’s income was assessed at Rs. 2,85,250/-. Subsequently, it was revealed by the Revenue’s Audit party that the assessee had made cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- aggregating to Rs. 21,94,715/-toward...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.
3 Comments
Cancel reply
For a better understanding and tight grip of the essence of the Pr. COMMENT(:
https://taxguru.in/income-tax/summary-draft-report-easwar-committee-simplify-provisions-incometax-act-1961.html
<…………….(e) No re-opening or revision of assessments under sections 147 and 263 respectively merely on the basis of audit objections………”
The point of ISSUE is whether or not ‘reopening of an assessment’ based on ‘Audit objection’ is valid and sustainable in law . Prima facie, the stated general proposition has been favourably decided by courts severally /many a time . As such, there is no rationale, or rhyme or reason in the view taken conceding /upholding the Revenue’s stance that has to be decided depending upon whether or not the amount that has escaped ‘scrutiny assessment’ in a given case is no less than the arbitrarily fixed sum of Rs 20000. The Revenue’s stance is, apparently,devoid of any substance or merit in the eyes of ‘the law’/ case law; more so, if considered with due focus on the supervening PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE .
One has to await developments in the most likely further proceedings.
Meanwhile, anyone with eminent thoughts / expert views to share in a like vein !?!
I agree with vswami. Audit objection is an information. All the facts were placed before the AO during assessment. AO should not proceed based on audit objection as it also tantamounts to change of opinion. This is my view with due respects to those concerned.