2021 (9) TMI 981 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Cash deposits unexplained - HELD THAT - Bank statements are filed to submit that this issue has already been examined by the AO after taking into consideration of copy of challans and satisfied to the fact that the assessee facilitated to the clients for rendering better services received amounts from clients to pay income tax challans on behalf them and said amounts were not utilized for any other purpose. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee s intention of the cash deposits into the bank was in a malafide nature to make black money into white during demonetization period. Once the AO has taken a view on the issue, on which two views are possible, the view which is taken by the AO, if Pr. CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law, as per the ratio laid down in the case of Malabar Industries ltd. Vs. CIT 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT . Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the Income-tax 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 Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law - in the case under consideration, the view which has been taken by the AO is one of the courses permissible in law, which cannot be brushed aside by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 - we set aside the order of the Pr. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act, and restore the order of the AO. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the IT Act.
2. Examination of the assessment order dated 15.11.2019.
3. Verification and enquiry by the Assessing Officer (AO) before passing the assessment order.
4. Plausibility of the AO's view and its treatment as erroneous.
5. Enquiries conducted by Pr. CIT and the sustainability of the assessment order.
6. Acceptance of agricultural income without proper enquiries.
7. Acceptance of large cash deposits during the demonetization period.
8. Direction to re-do the assessment de novo by Pr. CIT.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order Passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the IT Act:
The assessee challenged the order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the IT Act, arguing that it was ab initio void and bad in law. The Pr. CIT exercised powers u/s 263, deeming the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue due to lack of proper inquiries or verification. The Tribunal found that the AO had already examined the relevant issues and documents thoroughly, thus the Pr. CIT's exercise of revisionary powers was unjustified.

2. Examination of the Assessment Order Dated 15.11.2019:
The assessment order was scrutinized to determine whether the AO had conducted appropriate verification. The AO had accepted the returned income after verifying the details provided by the assessee, including agricultural income and cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Tribunal observed that the AO had made detailed inquiries and verified the necessary documents before passing the assessment order.

3. Verification and Enquiry by the AO Before Passing the Assessment Order:
The AO had issued statutory notices and obtained explanations from the assessee. The AO verified the agricultural income and cash deposits, concluding that the decrease in agricultural income was due to the absence of eucalyptus plantation sales in the relevant year. The AO also verified the sources of cash deposits during the demonetization period, finding them to be from clients for tax payments.

4. Plausibility of the AO's View and Its Treatment as Erroneous:
The Tribunal noted that if the AO's view is plausible and based on thorough verification, it cannot be deemed erroneous merely because the Pr. CIT disagrees. The AO's acceptance of the assessee's explanations and documents was considered a plausible view, thus not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of revenue.

5. Enquiries Conducted by Pr. CIT and the Sustainability of the Assessment Order:
The Pr. CIT had set aside the assessment order, directing a de novo assessment without establishing how the original order was unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that the Pr. CIT should have examined the documents and inquiries conducted by the AO before concluding that the assessment order was erroneous.

6. Acceptance of Agricultural Income Without Proper Enquiries:
The AO had verified the agricultural income by examining the cash flow statement, income & expenditure statement, balance sheet, and other relevant documents. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries, including deputing inspectors to verify the agricultural operations, thus the acceptance of agricultural income was justified.

7. Acceptance of Large Cash Deposits During the Demonetization Period:
The AO had verified the sources of cash deposits, which were from clients for tax payments. The Tribunal observed that the AO had thoroughly examined the bank statements and tax challans, concluding that the deposits were not malafide. The Tribunal held that the AO's view was permissible and not erroneous.

8. Direction to Re-do the Assessment De Novo by Pr. CIT:
The Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT's direction to re-do the assessment de novo was unwarranted as the AO had already conducted detailed inquiries and verifications. The Tribunal set aside the Pr. CIT's order and restored the AO's assessment order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 and restoring the assessment order dated 15.11.2019. The Tribunal concluded that the AO had conducted thorough verification and inquiries, making the assessment order neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue.

← Previous Next →