2023 (3) TMI 472 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - assessment order had been framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 - cash deposits has remained unverified /unexplained - refund of advance of property u/s 69A of the act, which was also settled under VSVS scheme - HELD THAT - PCIT ought to have rebutted the documentary evidences filed by the assessee and the view of the AO in accepting the source of cash deposits as explained by way of pointing out deficiencies and directing specific enquiries in respect of source of particular amount of cash deposit or the source of cash deposit remained unverified or unexplained. Meaning thereby, the PCIT s general and vague observation that the source of cash deposit remained unverified or unexplained and same need verification at assessment stage without appreciating the facts on record and holding the order passed by the AO to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue is against the intention of the legislation and bad in law. It is pertinent to mention that by way of the impugned order passed u/s 263, it can be said the PCIT-1 has attempted to made a case for reexamination of facts and evidences already examined by the AO while passing the order u/s 143/147 of the act. Such an action of PCIT is not justified in law and on the facts of the case. We have to understand that lack of enquiry/no enquiry is different from inadequate enquiry and it is only in case of no enquiry by the AO, Pr. CIT/C1T can exercise jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and not in case where the AO has made enquiries as seems appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instance case inquiry on relevant issue has been made by AO, hence no action invited u/s 263. We hold that the impugned order passed by the PCIT is perverse to facts on record in holding assessment order erroneous and prejudice to the interest of revenue on account of lack of enquiry. Accordingly, the order passed by the PCIT -1, Jalandhar u/s 263 is cancelled being bad in law. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's (PCIT) order under Section 263.
2. Verification of the source of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 35,50,000.
3. Impact of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on the proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the PCIT's Order under Section 263:

The assessee contended that the PCIT's order dated 23/03/2021 was against the law and facts of the case. The PCIT had set aside the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The PCIT claimed that the AO had not verified the source of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 35,50,000, deeming the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. However, the Tribunal found that the AO had indeed conducted necessary inquiries and had verified the sources of the cash deposits through detailed examination and supporting documents. The Tribunal held that the PCIT's general and vague observation without appreciating the facts on record was against the intention of the legislation and bad in law.

2. Verification of the Source of Cash Deposits:

The PCIT argued that the source of cash deposits of Rs. 35,50,000 remained unverified/unexplained. The assessee provided a detailed cash flow chart during the assessment proceedings, which the AO had accepted after thorough verification. The AO had issued a notice under Section 142(1) and asked the assessee to explain the source of the cash deposits with supporting documentary evidence. The AO was satisfied with the explanations provided by the assessee, including the cash flow from business receipts and cash received from the husband, who had entered into a property sale agreement. The Tribunal noted that the AO had made necessary inquiries and had applied his mind to the material facts, thus the PCIT's action for reexamination under Section 263 was not justified.

3. Impact of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme:

The assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for dispute resolution, and a Certificate in Form No. 5 was issued, indicating full and final settlement of tax arrears. The Tribunal highlighted that once the certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was issued, the proceedings were considered closed, and the case could not be reopened under the Income Tax Act. The PCIT's initiation of proceedings under Section 263 after the issuance of the certificate was deemed null and void. The Tribunal referenced Section 5(3) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, which states that no matter covered by such an order can be reopened in any proceedings under the Income Tax Act.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT's order was not sustainable as the AO had conducted adequate inquiries, and the assessee had provided satisfactory explanations for the cash deposits. Additionally, the closure of the case under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme barred any further proceedings under Section 263. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, cancelling the PCIT's order as being bad in law.