Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Saravana Global Holdings Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 1383 & 1384/CHNY/2017
Date of Judgement/Order : 11/08/2023
Related Assessment Year : 2007-08
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Saravana Global Holdings Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai)

ITAT Chennai held that assessment order passed without examining the seized documents is prejudicial to the interest of revenue and hence the revisionary order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act duly sustainable.

Facts- The assessee is an infrastructure and real estate company and forms part of the Challani group. Post search and seizure action on the premises of Indo Asian Finance Ltd., belonging to Challani Group, assessment was framed u/s.153C r.w.s.153A of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2015. Subsequently, the PCIT on examination of assessment records issued a show-cause notice dated 28.03.2017 requiring the assessee to explain as to why the assessment framed by AO vide order dated 31.03.2015 u/s.153C r.w.s.153A of the Act be not revised u/s.263 of the Act for the relevant assessment year 2007­08. The PCIT in his show-cause notice noted that the AO has not considered the seized document vide Annexure ANN/SSK/IAFL/B&D/F found at the premises of M/s. Indo Asia Finance Ltd.

Not being satisfied with the reply, the PCIT held that the assessment framed by the AO for the assessment year 2007-08 u/s.153C r.w.s. 153A vide order dated 31.03.2015 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He directed the AO to re-decide the issue after conducting necessary enquiries and verification with regard to the said issue. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Conclusion- Held that the seized documents are never examined by the AO as is apparent from the assessment order and to counter the same, the assessee has not filed any evidence before us. Even otherwise, there is no evidence that the transaction has been carried out by Shri Jayanthilal on his own and not behalf of the assessee company. This has to be established. Hence, we find no infirmity in the revision and hence, the same is confirmed. Accordingly, this appeal of assessee is dismissed.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031