2023 (4) TMI 278 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - high value receipt of cash shown from third parties in response to data and payment of tax in cash during demonization period during the year - certain receipts during pre-demonetization period were high, whereas, the number of entries during demonetization period and post-demonization period were comparatively less - HELD THAT - Assessee furnished the cash book and even also explained that as per the Circular/ Notification issued by the Government, the Nursing Homes were authorised by the Govt. of India to accept old currency during the demonization period. Assessee has given the details of the receipts - PCIT has not compared such receipts with any previous year or subsequent year's receipts. PCIT in this case has exercised his revisionary jurisdiction merely on the basis of the assumption and presumption without pointing out as to what fault or defect was there in the explanation given by the Assessee vis-a-vis the details of the receipts shown by the Assessee and the cash book maintained by the Assessee. Assessee during the year had shown total profession receipts of approx. Rs. 3.45 crores, out of which, the Assessee has returned the income of Rs. 1.59 cores, which seems to be quite reasonable. PCIT has failed to point out any discrepancy in the accounts of the Assessee, but only suspected the genuineness of the cash book by bifurcating the receipts between the different period of years, which, in our view, cannot be held to be justified for exercise of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 and thereby subjecting the Assessee to de novo assessment. Certain increase in the salary of two employees and having made certain payments to DLF for office space at Delhi, disallowance use u/s 36(1)((iii) of the Act etc. - As we find that the case of the Assessee was not selected for scrutiny on these issues. The only issue for which the case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act was in respect of 'the high value receipt of cash shown from third parties in response to data and payment of tax in cash during demonization period' Since the case was not selected for scrutiny on these issues, therefore, it cannot be said to be any error in the order of the AO has occurred, even if the said issues in the opinion of the Ld. PCIT were not thoroughly examined as of the selection of the case was for limited scrutiny. AO, otherwise, was not supposed to go into these issues. In view of this, it cannot be said that there was any error in the order of the AO on these issues, therefore, the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction of the Ld. PCIT in respect of the aforesaid issues cannot be held to be justified. The exercise of revision jurisdiction by the Ld. PCIT in the above case is bad in law - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the appeal against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, regarding the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer.

Grounds of Appeal:
1. The Assessee challenged the order under section 263, arguing that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest.
2. The Assessee contended that detailed enquiries were conducted by the Assessing Officer on various aspects like cash deposits, salary payments, investments, and submissions were made before the Principal Commissioner.
3. The Assessee claimed that detailed submissions were made during the proceedings under section 263, which were not adequately considered by the Principal Commissioner.
4. The Assessee objected to the lack of specification by the Principal Commissioner on how the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to revenue's interest.

Facts of the Case:
The Assessee, running a Nursing Home, declared an income of Rs. 1,59,70,983 during the relevant year. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, and the Principal Commissioner initiated revision proceedings under section 263. The Principal Commissioner observed that necessary enquiries were not conducted by the Assessing Officer, leading to the revision proceedings.

Assessee's Submissions:
The Assessee provided detailed submissions, including:
- Cash deposits during demonetization period.
- Salary payments to doctors.
- Interest-free advances to parties for specific purposes, supported by ledger accounts.

Principal Commissioner's Observations:
The Principal Commissioner noted discrepancies in the cash deposits made by the Assessee during demonetization. Despite the Assessee's explanations and submission of ledger accounts for various receipts, the Principal Commissioner was not satisfied with the cash book provided.

Judgment:
The Appellate Tribunal found that the Principal Commissioner's revisionary jurisdiction was unjustified. The Tribunal held that the Assessee had adequately explained the cash receipts and other issues before both the Assessing Officer and the Principal Commissioner. The Tribunal concluded that the Principal Commissioner's assumptions and lack of specific faults in the Assessee's explanations did not warrant revisionary action under section 263. The appeal of the Assessee was allowed, and the revision order under section 263 was quashed.

Separate Judgment:
No separate judgment was delivered by the Judges in this case.