Rajesh Choudhary Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur)
ITAT Jaipur held that invocation of revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since AO duly verified investment and payment of ESI/PF. Accordingly, revision is merely on the basis of assumption and presumption and doesn’t indicate that order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
Facts- Post completion of assessment proceeding, PCIT called for the assessment records in accordance with the provision of section 263 of the Act. While examining the assessment record ld. PCIT observed that during the survey proceedings, the assessee had surrendered a sum of Rs.22,62,143/- on account of unexplained investment. He further noted that out of this Rs.22,62,143/-, the assessee had disclosed Rs.22,50,000/- in his return of income. Therefore, the remaining amount was to be added to the total income of the assessee. PCIT further noted in his order that the assessee had made late payment of ESI for the month of May, July, November and January which should have been disallowed and added to the income of the assessee u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Income Tax Act. This amount comes to Rs.17,298/- and the AO failed to add this sum of Rs.17,298/- to the total income of the assessee. Thus PCIT observed that in view of the above facts the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) dated 20-09-2021 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
