2021 (9) TMI 192 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - unexplained cash deposits - Lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry - reopening of assessment u/s 147 initiated - HELD THAT - Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings required the assessee to furnish detail income tax return, computation of income, details of bank statement and the reply of questionnaire raised to assessee about the source of deposits. Before us the Ld. AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that assessee s declared income of ₹ 1.80 lakh from business of transportation under section 44AE and ₹ 1.39 lakh from trading in building material respectively (being @ 8% of total turnover of ₹ 17.44 lakh). Assessing Officer made sufficient enquiries during the assessment and took reasonable and possible view. In our view, if the review taken by Assessing Officer is not acceptable Ld. PCIT, order under section 263 cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for revising the order Assessing Officer by invoking power under section 263 of the Act the twin condition i.e., order is erroneous and in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue must be fulfilled simultaneously at the cost of repetition. It is not a case of lack of enquiry, the Ld. PCIT while passing the order under section 263 held that Assessing Officer has not made adequate enquiry. Therefore the order passed by Ld. PCIT under section 263 is not sustainable and the same is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT)'s direction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Examination of the cash deposits in the assessee's bank account.
3. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's (AO) enquiry and verification during the assessment process.
4. Classification of the cash deposits as business receipts or unexplained deposits under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the PCIT's Direction under Section 263:
The assessee contested the PCIT's direction under Section 263, arguing that the assessment completed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The tribunal analyzed whether the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue were met. It concluded that the PCIT's order was not sustainable as it was based on the premise of inadequate enquiry rather than lack of enquiry, which is insufficient ground for invoking Section 263.

2. Examination of Cash Deposits:
The AO noted that the assessee made cash deposits amounting to ?45.35 lakhs in his savings bank account. During the assessment, the assessee explained that ?38.68 lakhs were business receipts, and the remaining ?6.69 lakhs were from his capital account. The AO treated the ?6.69 lakhs as business receipts and made an addition of 8% as profit, resulting in an additional income of ?53,562. The PCIT, however, argued that the AO did not properly verify the source of the deposits and suggested that the ?6.69 lakhs should have been treated as unexplained deposits under Section 69A.

3. Adequacy of AO's Enquiry and Verification:
The tribunal examined whether the AO made adequate enquiries during the assessment. The AO had issued statutory notices, obtained explanations, and verified the details provided by the assessee, including the nature of the business and sources of income. The tribunal found that the AO had conducted sufficient enquiries and had taken a reasonable view based on the facts presented. The tribunal emphasized that there is a distinction between 'lack of enquiry' and 'inadequate enquiry,' and only the former can justify revising an order under Section 263.

4. Classification of Cash Deposits:
The PCIT argued that the AO should have classified the ?6.69 lakhs as unexplained deposits under Section 69A instead of treating them as business receipts. The assessee contended that the deposits were justifiable based on his business activities and capital requirements. The tribunal found that the AO's classification of the deposits as business receipts was reasonable and supported by the evidence provided by the assessee. The tribunal concluded that the AO's approach was tenable and did not warrant revision under Section 263.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the PCIT's order under Section 263. It held that the AO had made adequate enquiries and had taken a reasonable and plausible view based on the evidence presented. The tribunal emphasized that inadequacy of enquiry alone is not sufficient ground for invoking Section 263, and the PCIT's order was not sustainable as it failed to meet the twin conditions of being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.