2023 (1) TMI 1213 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - PCIT has held that the A.O. has not made proper verification as to the cash deposits during the demonetization period for which the assessee is said to have not furnished the documentary evidence in support of its claim - PCIT also stated that the A.O. has failed to call for the complete details of cash deposits (old and legal notes) from the banks and has also failed to make a comparative analysis of deposits of earlier year and subsequent year from the respective banks and also from the assessee - PCIT held that in view of the audit objection raised by the IAP as well as the direction received from CCIT, Pune, the assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s. 143(3) is held to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue - HELD THAT - A.O. has sought for details pertaining to all the issues raised by the ld. PCIT during the assessment proceedings and has also received adequate reply from the assessee by way of written submission and documentary evidences to substantiate the assessee s claim, pertaining to these issues. So from this, we can infer that there was no lack of enquiry pertaining to the issues raised. While considering the fact that whether there was inadequacy in conducting the enquiry by the A.O. was to be looked into in view of the propositions laid by the various courts. The assessee has relied on the decision of Brahma Centre Development Pvt Ltd. 2021 (7) TMI 347 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein it was held that the inadequacy in conducting the enquiry by the A.O. cannot be the reason for the ld. PCIT to invoke the provision of section 263 of the Act. From the facts of the case, it is observed that the A.O. has enquired into the details of the cash deposits during demonetization period and there is no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the A.O. For the issue pertaining to the deduction u/s. 80P to the assessee for which the assessee has also furnished sufficient evidences in support of its claim, we are of the view that as there are divergent views in relation to interest received from the deposits made in co-operative banks, the A.O. is said to have taken one of the view possible and has allowed the impugned deduction. A.O. has considered the submissions of the assessee and has taken one of the plausible view and passed the assessment order. We find no latches and mistakes committed by the A.O. while passing assessment order. In view of the decision by Hon'ble Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT merely because two plausible views are available and the A.O. has taken one view, the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act cannot be exercised and we thereby hold that exercise of power u/s. 263 of the Act was not in accordance with the law. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Verification of cash deposits during the demonetization period.
3. Eligibility for deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Applicability of Section 69A and Section 115BBE on cash deposits.
5. Applicability of Section 269SS on certain transactions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263:
The primary issue in this appeal is the challenge against the jurisdiction of the PCIT for invoking Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The PCIT invoked Section 263 on the grounds that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The appeal questioned whether the PCIT had the authority to revise the assessment order under these grounds.

2. Verification of Cash Deposits During Demonetization:
The assessee, a co-operative society, had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 2,02,05,729/- during the demonetization period. The PCIT held that the A.O. did not properly verify these cash deposits, including failing to call for complete details of cash deposits (old and legal notes) and failing to make a comparative analysis of deposits from previous and subsequent years. The PCIT suggested that the A.O. should have added this amount as 'unexplained income' under Section 69A of the Act.

3. Eligibility for Deductions Under Section 80P:
The PCIT contended that the assessee was not entitled to deductions under Sections 80P(2)(d) and 80P(2)(ia) for interest income received from investments made with co-operative banks, citing the Supreme Court decision in Totgar Co-op. Sale Society vs. ITO. The PCIT argued that the interest income from deposits made with entities other than co-operative societies was not allowable under Section 80P(2)(d). Additionally, the PCIT held that various other incomes totaling Rs. 11,24,334/- should be taxed under Section 56 as 'income from other sources.'

4. Applicability of Section 69A and Section 115BBE on Cash Deposits:
The PCIT directed the A.O. to examine the applicability of Section 69A read with Section 115BBE on the cash deposits made by the assessee. The PCIT argued that the cash deposits during the demonetization period should have been scrutinized more rigorously to determine if they constituted unexplained income.

5. Applicability of Section 269SS on Certain Transactions:
The PCIT also directed the A.O. to verify the applicability of Section 269SS on certain transactions amounting to Rs. 59,93,369/- and to examine the applicability of deductions under Section 80P on 'other income' amounting to Rs. 11,24,334/-.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal observed that the A.O. had indeed sought detailed information from the assessee during the assessment proceedings, including details of cash deposits, deductions under Chapter VI-A, and other relevant financial information. The assessee provided comprehensive responses and documentary evidence to substantiate its claims.

The Tribunal noted that the A.O. had conducted adequate inquiries and had taken a plausible view based on the information provided. The Tribunal referenced the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Brahma Centre Development Pvt Ltd., which differentiated between a lack of inquiry and a deficiency in inquiry, concluding that the A.O.'s actions did not constitute a lack of inquiry.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified, as the A.O. had made a reasoned decision based on the evidence provided. The Tribunal emphasized that merely because two plausible views are available, and the A.O. has taken one view, does not justify the exercise of power under Section 263.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the PCIT's order under Section 263. The Tribunal found no errors or prejudices in the A.O.'s assessment order and upheld the A.O.'s decisions regarding cash deposits, deductions under Section 80P, and other related issues.

← Previous Next →