2022 (6) TMI 939 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Case selected for limited scrutiny for the reason of cash deposit in savings bank accounts is more than the turnover - HELD THAT - AO has completed the assessment without making enquires or verification which should have been made in respect of deposit of cash in the savings bank accounts of the assessee with HDFC bank and Axis bank, more particularly when the case was selected for assessment with limited scrutiny for the reason that cash deposit in savings bank accounts is more than the turnover . We do not find any reason to interfere with the consideration arrived at by the Ld. PCIT in invoking the revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act for holding the order passed u/s. 144 dated 26.10.2017 as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue and thereby setting it aside with a direction to the AO to call for all the details in respect of sources for the deposit of cash and verify them to make fresh assessment order by giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Jurisdiction invoked by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Assessment proceedings regarding cash deposits in savings bank accounts.
4. Compliance with providing explanations on the sources of cash deposits.
5. Observations and findings in the consequential assessment order.
6. Adequacy of inquiries and verifications made during the assessment process.

Issue 1: Delay in filing the appeal
The appeal filed by the assessee had a delay of 505 days due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had allowed an exclusion of the period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 while reckoning the limitation period and permitted 90 days for filing belated appeals. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction invoked by the PCIT under section 263
The PCIT invoked revisionary proceedings under section 263 based on the observation that the cash deposits in the assessee's savings bank accounts were not business transactions and should have been treated as unexplained income. The PCIT set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the sources of cash deposits and make a fresh assessment. The assessee contended that the AO had already dealt with the issue, but the PCIT found the assessment to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 3: Assessment proceedings regarding cash deposits
The AO had made additions to the assessee's income based on cash deposits in savings bank accounts, which were deemed undisclosed income. The PCIT observed that these deposits were not business transactions and should have been treated as unexplained income. The AO's failure to conduct proper inquiries and verifications led to the PCIT setting aside the assessment order and directing a fresh assessment.

Issue 4: Compliance with providing explanations on the sources of cash deposits
The assessee and their representative had avoided compliance in providing explanations on the sources of cash deposits, both during the original assessment and the revisionary proceedings. The lack of cooperation and explanations contributed to the PCIT's decision to set aside the assessment order and call for further details.

Issue 5: Observations and findings in the consequential assessment order
The consequential assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act was highlighted, showing that the assessee continued to avoid compliance in providing explanations on the sources of cash deposits. The Tribunal refrained from expressing views on this order, as it was a separate appealable order.

Issue 6: Adequacy of inquiries and verifications made during the assessment process
It was noted that the AO had not conducted sufficient inquiries or verifications regarding the cash deposits in the savings bank accounts, especially considering the reason for the limited scrutiny selection. The PCIT found the assessment to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, leading to the direction for a fresh assessment. The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's decision, dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the PCIT's decision to set aside the assessment order and direct a fresh assessment due to the lack of proper inquiries and compliance with providing explanations on the sources of cash deposits. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of conducting thorough assessments in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act.