9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 892 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - Unexplained cash deposits - as per CIT addition in the assessment order was charged to tax at normal rate which actually as unexplained cash deposit, which was required to be taxed u/s 69 as unexplained investment in view of the insertion of section 115BBE(1) by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013, any income referred to in section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C 69D was required to be taxed at the rate of 30% (flat rate) and no other deduction is allowed to the assessee against such income - HELD THAT - both assessee and her husband are super senior citizens belonging to respectable social and economical background. It has been narrated specifically that because of old age, health ailments they have liquid funds/cash at their disposal to meet any urgent medical contingencies. That even the assessee s husband retired as Colonel in Indian Army and is drawing pensions, the children i.e. both son and daughter of the assessee are well to do and they are also sending money to their parents for their day to day needs. These facts have not been disputed by the Department at all. That even in the order passed u/s 263 by the Pr.CIT, he has not been able to bring out specifically under the given facts and circumstances why the assessment order is erroneous so as to be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue when on the contrary all the facts were scrutinized by the Assessing Officer and he has arrived at a plausible opinion on application of mind. When all the explanations and documents from the assessee have been scrutinized and examined by the Assessing Officer in such scenario the order of the assessment cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Pr.CIT has initiated proceedings starting a fishing and roving enquiry in the matter without bringing on record any material or evidence demonstrating that he has acted in a reasonable manner. That with regard to the chargeability of cash deposit for the purpose of taxation and the applicability of section 115BBE(1) may be separately looked into by the Department. But, this is not a fit case for assuming revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Before parting, we must also mention that the practicalities of given circumstances always has to be looked into by the quasi judicial authorities before resorting to any provisions of the Act. There are several families consisting of super senior citizens whose children are well-settled but staying away from them for sake of job. It is a matter of common practice in most of the household of our country that the children take care of their parents financially even though the parents may be financially well off on their own. It is a part of moral responsibility on the part of the children for taking care of their aged parents at least by sending finances irrespective of whether they require or not. These facts were explained before the Assessing Officer as evident from para 4 of the assessment order and other relevant details were furnished as and when the Assessing Officer has examined thereafter he has taken a plausible view. In such facts and circumstances, the order passed by the Pr.CIT u/s 263 is held as unjustified, invalid and liable to be quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Revision order passed under section 263 by PCIT for assessment year 2015-16. 2. Validity of addition made by Assessing Officer on unexplained cash deposit. 3. Application of section 115BBE(1) for taxing unexplained cash deposits. 4. Justification of revisionary jurisdiction exercised by PCIT. Issue 1: Revision order under section 263 The appeal arose from the PCIT's order dated 17.03.2021 for the assessment year 2015-16. The grounds of appeal challenged the PCIT's revision order under section 263. The appellant contended that the original assessment order under section 143(3) was passed after full satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, and the PCIT erred in passing the revision order exparte without considering the submissions made by the assessee. Issue 2: Addition on unexplained cash deposit During the assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee had deposited cash in the bank exceeding the gross turnover of the business. The Assessing Officer made an addition to the total income of the assessee for unexplained cash deposits. However, the PCIT observed that the assessment was erroneous as the addition should have been taxed under section 115BBE(1) at a flat rate of 30%, instead of the normal rate applied by the Assessing Officer. Issue 3: Application of section 115BBE(1) The PCIT held that the unexplained cash deposit should have been taxed under section 115BBE(1) at a flat rate of 30%. The assessee argued that all details were provided during the scrutiny assessment, and the cash deposits were explained as past savings for meeting medical contingencies due to old age. The Tribunal emphasized that the chargeability of cash deposits and the applicability of section 115BBE(1) should be separately examined by the Department. Issue 4: Revisionary jurisdiction of PCIT The Tribunal found that the PCIT initiated revisionary proceedings without bringing any material or evidence demonstrating a reasonable basis for his actions. Considering the circumstances of super senior citizens with well-settled children supporting them financially, the Tribunal held the PCIT's order under section 263 as unjustified, invalid, and ordered it to be quashed. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of considering practicalities and moral responsibilities before resorting to provisions of the Act. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the need for a reasonable basis for revisionary actions and the consideration of practical and moral aspects in tax assessments.
|
