9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1399 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - cash deposits unexplained - As per CIT AO granted relief to the assessee without making inquiries into the claim that assessee has made specified bank notes (SBN) cash deposits in specified demonetization period - HELD THAT - The assessee provided the details with date of sales, name of customers, address of customers, description of sales gross weight of jewellery, diamond weight and amount utilized on such sales. We find that assessee also provided sales made in the month of October, 2016 VAT returns, filed before VAT authority under statutory obligation, copy of VAT return of the month of October and November, 2016. The assessee also furnished cash book, sale book for the month of October and November, 2016, wherein stock register showing the entries of sales and names and complete address of the customers to whom cash sales were made. The assessee stated that there is no scope of any doubt that assessee has furnished names and addresses of such customers, sales invoices, statutory VAT return. AO made addition of 10% of the total cash deposit during the month of October and November 2016. On the basis of aforesaid factual discussions and on the basis of details called for by AO, we find that the Assessing Officer after calling the details of cash deposit, while making addition of 10% of cash deposit of Rs. 77.00 lacs, being income component, which is a reasonable addition. The addition made by assessing officer is plausible and legally sustainable view, which cannot be branded as erroneous. The investigation conducted and the view adopted by the assessing officer in the present case, if not accepted by the Ld. PCIT, is nothing but change of opinion. It is settled position in law that no revision of assessment order is permissible on mere change of opinion. AO took reasonable, plausible and legally sustainable view, which cannot be branded as erroneous. There is no doubt that while accepting the claim in the assessment, there may be some loss of revenue, tax can be levied only with the authority of law, and every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view adopted by assessing officer permissible in law. Once the assessing officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the assessing officer is unsustainable in law. Grounds raised by the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdictional conditions for passing an order under section 263. 2. Detailed inquiry by the Assessing Officer (AO) on cash deposits. 3. Difference of opinion between Pr.CIT and AO. 4. Invocation of powers under section 263. 5. Assessment order being "erroneous" and "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue." 6. Justification of the assessment order's error and its impact on revenue. 7. Proper inquiry into facts by AO. 8. Pr.CIT's failure to appreciate lawful assessment. 9. Detailed submissions in response to notice under Section 263. 10. Validity of the order under section 263. 11. Independence of grounds of appeal. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdictional Conditions for Passing an Order under Section 263: The assessee argued that the Pr.CIT erred in passing an order under section 263 when the jurisdictional conditions were not satisfied. The Tribunal examined the prerequisites for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner, as outlined in the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT. The Tribunal emphasized that both conditions'error in the order and prejudice to the revenue'must be satisfied for section 263 to be invoked. 2. Detailed Inquiry by the Assessing Officer (AO) on Cash Deposits: The Tribunal noted that the AO conducted a thorough inquiry into the cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The AO issued multiple show cause notices, requested detailed information, and verified the details provided by the assessee. The AO's decision to add 10% of the cash deposits as profit was based on a comprehensive examination of the evidence. 3. Difference of Opinion between Pr.CIT and AO: The Tribunal held that a mere difference of opinion between the Pr.CIT and the AO does not justify the invocation of section 263. The AO's decision, which was based on a detailed inquiry and a reasonable estimation of profit, was a plausible and legally sustainable view. 4. Invocation of Powers under Section 263: The Tribunal reiterated that the power of revision under section 263 is supervisory and can only be exercised if the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Tribunal found that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue, as it was based on a detailed inquiry and a reasonable estimation of profit. 5. Assessment Order being "Erroneous" and "Prejudicial to the Interest of the Revenue": The Tribunal emphasized that an order cannot be termed erroneous unless it deviates from the law. The AO's assessment, which included a detailed examination of the cash deposits and a reasonable estimation of profit, was in accordance with the law and could not be branded as erroneous. 6. Justification of the Assessment Order's Error and Its Impact on Revenue: The Tribunal found that the AO's decision to add 10% of the cash deposits as profit was justified and based on a detailed examination of the evidence. The Pr.CIT's assertion that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue was not supported by the facts. 7. Proper Inquiry into Facts by AO: The Tribunal noted that the AO conducted a thorough inquiry into the cash deposits, including issuing multiple show cause notices, requesting detailed information, and verifying the details provided by the assessee. The AO's decision was based on a comprehensive examination of the evidence. 8. Pr.CIT's Failure to Appreciate Lawful Assessment: The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT failed to appreciate the lawful assessment conducted by the AO. The AO's decision, which was based on a detailed inquiry and a reasonable estimation of profit, was legally sustainable and could not be branded as erroneous. 9. Detailed Submissions in Response to Notice under Section 263: The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided a detailed and comprehensive response to the notice under section 263, including all relevant details and evidence. The Pr.CIT's failure to consider these submissions further undermined the validity of the order under section 263. 10. Validity of the Order under Section 263: The Tribunal found that the order under section 263 was invalid, as the AO's assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The AO's decision was based on a detailed inquiry and a reasonable estimation of profit, and the Pr.CIT's invocation of section 263 was not justified. 11. Independence of Grounds of Appeal: The Tribunal acknowledged that the grounds of appeal were independent of each other and considered each ground on its merits. The Tribunal's decision was based on a comprehensive examination of the facts and the law, and it found in favor of the assessee on all grounds. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the Pr.CIT under section 263, holding that the AO's assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The appeals of the assessee were allowed.
|
