Taxc/36/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Dr.smt Anju Goyal

~^^^^^Sft' .^ » ^o' Xi-HC- ^"^ 'gFatwTS, ~:3W^V,, f^TR3TP: «.«l"'-t-'<..e.rt-t.—t XI-HC—78 'S^ '^TRTST?1, sifll'M'iS, fsRTFRy "3?ITWP 5:!17S1 ^! TeFlRr(^I*l!<'l4)l ^f^lt^1! ^ tS1E^ <ra|'f^K^qi 311^?! gTqfeTR!TWgfe?3?1W-2-•^a'^man^iBriefly stated, facts |of the case are that the respondent-assessee is a doctor by profession, she filed her return of incomefor the assessment year uncjer consideration declaring total incomeofRs.3,15,010/-Duringtl^ecourse ofsurveyproceedingsun-accounted cashof Rs.1,83,425/- was found, which was surrenderedby the assessee treating th^ same as her undisclosed income.Thus,the income declared at Rsi3,45,040/- is inclusive of undisclosedincome. Her case was select^d for scrutiny under Section 143 (3) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act') and query letterswere issued to the assess^e to gather certain information.TheAssessing Officer (for shor^ 'AO") on verification found that mostof the expenses claimed wene un-vouched & unverifiable and keepingin view all these facts, a lum^-sum addition of Rs.50,000/- is made tothe income of the assessee 1jo cover-up the possible leakages.The Commissioner of IIncome Tax (for short 'CIT) examinedthe matter by invoking Section 263 of the Act and vide its orderdated 9.5.2007 reached to the conclusion that the AO while makingassessment failed to examine certain aspects detailed in the orderwhich resulted in under assessment of the income and therefore, itwas held that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and pre-^qi 311^?! gTqfeTR!TWgfe?3?1W-2-•^a'^man^iBriefly stated, facts |of the case are that the respondent-assessee is a doctor by profession, she filed her return of incomefor the assessment year uncjer consideration declaring total incomeofRs.3,15,010/-Duringtl^ecourse ofsurveyproceedingsun-accounted cashof Rs.1,83,425/- was found, which was surrenderedby the assessee treating th^ same as her undisclosed income.Thus,the income declared at Rsi3,45,040/- is inclusive of undisclosedincome. Her case was select^d for scrutiny under Section 143 (3) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act') and query letterswere issued to the assess^e to gather certain information.TheAssessing Officer (for shor^ 'AO") on verification found that mostof the expenses claimed wene un-vouched & unverifiable and keepingin view all these facts, a lum^-sum addition of Rs.50,000/- is made tothe income of the assessee 1jo cover-up the possible leakages.The Commissioner of IIncome Tax (for short 'CIT) examinedthe matter by invoking Section 263 of the Act and vide its orderdated 9.5.2007 reached to the conclusion that the AO while makingassessment failed to examine certain aspects detailed in the orderwhich resulted in under assessment of the income and therefore, itwas held that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and pre- XI-HC—78 3n^f%'¥ri3-: !?im an^i W:TRT ^r^w^,, wvtww, fsidi'l-y srr^i tpffi- c^f^q) -^wrafeNN WiWff WiWff[[•?]]ft%r tN%R tN%Ritsii'n;!^ XI-HC—78 3n^f%'¥ri3-: !?im an^i W:TRT ^r^w^,, wvtww, fsidi'l-y srr^i tpffi- c^f^q) -^wrafeNN WiWff WiWff[[•?]]ft%r tN%R tN%Ritsii'n;!^ TOnw'sm?? 3nw-^wrafeNN WiWff WiWff[[•?]]ft%r tN%R tN%Ritsii'n;!^juSicial to fFiemTeresl'of nevenue^na~WCOliTtrligty7'The-^^order was cancelled under Section 263 of the Act and the AO wasdirected to frame it afreshj after proper examination of the issuespointed[out][ in][ the][ order][ by][ obtaining]proper[details][ and]particularsand after affording due opp^rtunity of being heard to the assessee.However, on appeal b^ the assessee, the Income Tax AppellateTribunal (for short 'ITAT) held that action of the CIT in invokingprovisions of Section 263 c|f the Act is not correct and therefore,the order of the CIT was cdnceled.itsii'n;!^juSicial to fFiemTeresl'of nevenue^na~WCOliTtrligty7'The-^^order was cancelled under Section 263 of the Act and the AO wasdirected to frame it afreshj after proper examination of the issuespointed[out][ in][ the][ order][ by][ obtaining]proper[details][ and]particularsand after affording due opp^rtunity of being heard to the assessee.However, on appeal b^ the assessee, the Income Tax AppellateTribunal (for short 'ITAT) held that action of the CIT in invokingprovisions of Section 263 c|f the Act is not correct and therefore,the order of the CIT was cdnceled. 1 Learned counsel for|the appellant submits that from bareperusal of the order of th^ AO, it would be evident that the samehas been passed in a most cf-yptic manner without making any enquiry<& without assigning any r-elason for making a lump-sum addition ofRs.50,000/-.The CIT, after careful examination of. the record, hasdetailed various aspects inj Para-2 of its order which clearly pointsout that the assessment was completed in haste and without properenquiry.Notice under Section 263 (1) of the Act was issued to theassessee and after affording opportunity of hearing to the assesseethe reasoned detailed order canceling the assessment by the AO hasbeenHowever, the ITAT, withoutdealing withvariouspassed. inIUi; l!uhllLUn&!(ani^jbu>n-Uir^^^-fidii^- rj'^i 'imin + Xl-H^-idrf^ 'S^T -'<l'41d'LI, 8>Tll^'IS, fqcll'My /,W1WI »»*11<*»WI.200 sn^i'^^ ('^?f3^(') B a5»Si?.."•^Sf^—.s''XI-HC-S78-^ 'S'ST "41't|ld'4, ®Tll'M'ls,fqyiyy ^ /•<•:^"-^-':^.---K^^ XI-HC—78 a-ni, •viffi^r.fB^ '•3WWW, ws?i 'vm (.'^yys)