2022 (10) TMI 595 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - unexplained cash deposit during the monetization period and agricultural income - HELD THAT - Pr. CIT has pointed out the areas where the AO ought to have inquiry, both qua the source of cash deposited by her in her bank accounts as indeed agricultural income, accepting instead the returned income of the assessee by simply relying on the submissions by the assessee. No enquiry worth name, much less proper, has been made by the AO. The assessment order is resultantly sans any finding in the matter, i.e., both as regards agricultural income as well as the source of cash deposits. The case law relied upon by the ld. Pr. CIT has not rebutted by the appellant before us in any manner. Case law in the matter is legion, each decision having been rendered in the fact settings of that specific case. We in fact find the decisions in Rampyari Devi Sarogi 1967 (5) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT and Deekap Kumar Garg 2007 (5) TMI 186 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT as squarely applicable in the facts of the instant case. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and, accordingly, decline to. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision of assessment under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2017-18.
2. Acceptance of returned income by Assessing Officer versus revision by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.
3. Verification of agricultural income and cash deposits during demonetization period.

Issue 1: Revision of assessment under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2017-18.

The case involves an appeal by the Assessee against the Order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Jabalpur revising the assessee's assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Principal Commissioner set aside the assessment, deeming it erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The revision was based on discrepancies in the assessee's claimed agricultural income and cash deposits during demonetization, lacking proper verification and inquiry by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 2: Acceptance of returned income by Assessing Officer versus revision by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.

The Assessing Officer initially accepted the returned income of the assessee, which included share income from partnership firms, agriculture income, and cash deposits during demonetization. However, the Principal Commissioner, in the exercise of revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act, found deficiencies in the assessment order. The Principal Commissioner highlighted discrepancies in the verification of agricultural income and the source of cash deposits, leading to the setting aside of the assessment for a de novo consideration.

Issue 3: Verification of agricultural income and cash deposits during demonetization period.

The Assessing Officer's assessment lacked detailed inquiry into the agricultural income declared by the assessee and the source of cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Principal Commissioner observed that the documents provided by the assessee did not align with the cash deposits in bank accounts. The lack of third-party inquiries regarding agricultural produce sales and the unverified opening cash balance raised concerns. The tribunal noted the absence of proper inquiry by the Assessing Officer, emphasizing the need for detailed verification of both agricultural income and cash sources.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the Principal Commissioner's decision to set aside the assessment for further investigation and proper application of the law. The judgment underscores the importance of thorough verification and inquiry by tax authorities to ensure accurate assessment of income and compliance with tax laws.