9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 823 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - Addition u/s 69A - As per CIT AO did not enquire into all relevant issues involving the assessee s foregoing deposits and business turnover whilst framing the assessment and therefore, the same attract section 263 jurisdiction - HELD THAT - Assessment nowhere indicates such detailed inquiry by the AO which renders the impugned regular assessment as erroneous as well as prejudicial one to the interest of revenue as held in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT - All these Revenue s arguments fail to evoke our concurrence. We make it clear that the sole issue therein is assessee s cash deposit in bank account out of which he could only explain the recorded sales turnover - It is in this factual backdrop that the Assessing Officer had accepted the source of foregoing cash deposit to the extent of recorded sales turnover and treated the remaining amount as unexplained u/s 69A - Meaning thereby that the Assessing Officer had already assessed the assessee u/s 69A. And there is nothing more left to conclude that the foregoing unaccounted sum deserves to be added in any other head of income. Faced with this situation, we hold that the Assessing Officer took one of the two possible views in invoking section 69A of the Act whilst dealing with assessee s cash deposit which could hardly be taken as an instance of the impugned assessment as erroneous causing prejudice to interest of revenue, simultaneously, as per their lordships landmark decision in Malabar Industrial Co. (supra). We thus reverse the PCIT s revisional directions in issue. Assessee appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Principal CIT's invocation of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's (AO) inquiry into the assessee's cash deposits and business turnover. 3. Justification for treating the cash deposits as unexplained income under Section 69A. 4. Delay in filing the appeal and its condonation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Principal CIT's Invocation of Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The Principal CIT invoked revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 on the grounds that the AO's assessment order dated 28-03-2016 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Principal CIT argued that the AO did not make adequate inquiries into the assessee's cash deposits totaling Rs. 52,48,000/-, of which only Rs. 14,72,581/- was accounted for as business sales. The remaining amount of Rs. 41,76,530/- was assessed under Section 69A. The Principal CIT held that the AO failed to verify the genuineness of the cash deposits, the nature of the bank accounts used, and whether the transactions complied with provisions such as Section 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia). 2. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's Inquiry into the Assessee's Cash Deposits and Business Turnover: The Principal CIT's detailed discussion highlighted that the AO did not conduct a thorough investigation into the cash deposits. The AO accepted the assessee's explanation without verifying the supporting documents like books of accounts, sale bills, and purchase bills. The Principal CIT cited several judicial pronouncements, including cases like Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT and Jeevan Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, to support the argument that the AO's failure to make adequate inquiries rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest. 3. Justification for Treating the Cash Deposits as Unexplained Income under Section 69A: The tribunal found that the AO had already assessed the unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 41,76,530/- under Section 69A. The AO's acceptance of the source of cash deposits to the extent of recorded sales turnover and treating the remaining amount as unexplained income was considered one of the two possible views. The tribunal held that this could not be taken as an instance of the assessment being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest, as per the landmark decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT. 4. Delay in Filing the Appeal and Its Condonation: The tribunal acknowledged the delay of 309 days in filing the appeal, attributing it to medical issues and communication gaps. The delay was condoned in the larger interest of justice, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, which emphasized substantial justice over technicalities. Conclusion: The tribunal reversed the Principal CIT's revisional directions, holding that the AO's assessment was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned to ensure substantial justice. The order was pronounced in open court on 10th October 2022.
|
