9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1319 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - unexplained cash deposits - lack of enquiry - HELD THAT - The assessee was unable to substantiate the source of deposits and he accepted 8% net profit of the total deposits. AO is not only an adjudicator, but also an investigator. It is the duty of the Assessing Officer to ascertain true facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke any enquiry. From the order of the AO, it is clear that the assessee has taken different stands at different points of time. At once occasion, the assessee states that different parties deposited cash in assessee s account so as to facilitate the payments by withdrawing the same through ATM while at other place, the assessee admitted the entire deposit as his business turnover and offered it for taxation @ 8%. AO had, however, not made any enquiry as to the actual business of the assessee. He has also failed to investigate the source of deposits in assessee s bank account, but straightway accepted the contention of the assessee without ascertaining the truth behind the cash deposits. The Assessing Officer has only endorsed the offer of the assessee without making any enquiry. Therefore, it is a case of lack of enquiries on the part of AO before accepting the offer of the assessee in the instant case. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order passed by the CIT. 2. Invocation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the CIT. 3. Directions given by the CIT on issues not raised in the notice under Section 263. 4. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's (AO) enquiry during the assessment proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Order Passed by the CIT: The appellant contended that the CIT's order was against the law and facts. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT had rightly revised the assessment order. The CIT had noted that the AO had not made adequate enquiries and had simply accepted the submissions of the assessee, which included inaccurate particulars and concealed facts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's decision, stating that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. Invocation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the CIT: The CIT invoked Section 263, which allows for revision of an order passed by the AO if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The CIT issued a show cause notice and, after considering the facts, set aside the AO's order, directing a fresh assessment. The Tribunal supported this invocation, citing that the AO had failed to conduct adequate enquiries and had accepted the assessee's submissions without verification. The Tribunal referenced various case laws, including CIT vs. DLF Powers Limited and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., to support the CIT's invocation of Section 263. 3. Directions Given by the CIT on Issues Not Raised in the Notice Under Section 263: The appellant argued that the CIT gave directions on issues not raised in the notice under Section 263. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT's directions were within the scope of the issues identified in the notice. The CIT had directed the AO to conduct thorough and adequate enquiries, which were necessary to ascertain the true nature of the transactions and the source of cash deposits. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO is both an investigator and an adjudicator and must conduct thorough investigations when circumstances provoke an enquiry. 4. Adequacy of the AO's Enquiry During the Assessment Proceedings: The appellant claimed that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries and that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. However, the Tribunal found that the AO had failed to investigate the source of cash deposits in the assessee's bank account and had accepted the assessee's submissions without verification. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not made any independent enquiries and had failed to ascertain the true nature of the assessee's activities. The Tribunal cited various case laws, including Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT and Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT, to support the conclusion that the AO's lack of enquiry rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, upholding the CIT's order to revise the assessment under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the AO had failed to conduct adequate enquiries and had accepted the assessee's submissions without verification, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of thorough investigations by the AO to ascertain the true nature of transactions and the source of income.
|
