2022 (8) TMI 730 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Introduction of cash as capital in the firm - HELD THAT - There is no dispute on the fact that the assessee has introduced cash of Rs.7,00,000/- as capital in the firm. Prima facie, enough cash was not available with the assessee to introduce as capital. AO had not verified it. During the hearing before the ld.CIT, the assessee submitted that he had taken Loan from Life Insurance Corporation of India - CIT observed that the explanation submitted by the assessee was not acceptable. We agree with the ld.CIT, that the explanation of the assessee that he had obtained Loan from LIC and then Rs.7,00,000/- had been introduced in cash as Capital in the firm, is not acceptable. Because, the LIC disburses Loan through banking channel, then why a prudent man will withdraw the amount in cash and introduce it as Capital in the firm? If the assessee wanted to introduce the impugned amount then he could have directly issued a cheque. Therefore, we agree with the ld.CIT that the explanation is not acceptable. Hence, the ld.CIT was right in holding that the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial. Similarly, the Assessing Officer has not verified the cash deposits in the impugned bank account. Thus CIT(A) has rightly invoked the jurisdiction u/s.263 - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10.

Analysis:
1. The Assessee challenged the Revisionary Order under S. 263 of the Act, arguing that the original assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue as full investigation was conducted. The Tribunal found the original assessment lacking in verifying the source of cash introduced as capital, leading to the conclusion that the assessment was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

2. The Assessee contended that the original assessment under section 143(3) was made after due consideration, but the Commissioner failed to apply his mind properly. The Tribunal noted that the explanation provided by the Assessee regarding the source of cash introduced was not satisfactory. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner that the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, as the Assessing Officer did not adequately verify the cash deposits and source of funds.

3. The Assessee argued that the Commissioner did not pass conclusive orders under section 263 and that the action taken was unwarranted. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner correctly invoked jurisdiction under section 263 by proving the assessment to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to lack of verification of source of funds and cash deposits.

4. The Assessee sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order under section 263, citing sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal noted the repeated absence of the Assessee during hearings and upheld the order under section 263, dismissing the grounds of appeal.

5. The Tribunal referenced the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Zuari Maroc Phosphates Ltd., emphasizing the importance of thorough investigation by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal upheld the order under section 263, concluding that the original assessment was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The appeal of the Assessee was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on 23rd June, 2022.