2022 (10) TMI 1042 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - As per CIT there is violation of section 40A(3) not considered by AO - HELD THAT - AO did not gave its reasoning before allowing relief to the assessee, and erroneously accepted that since a single voucher cash payment in a day was below Rs. 20000/- and hence Section 40A(3) is not attracted, but failed to appreciate that if all such vouchers reflecting cash payment to a single party/creditor in a day are aggregated , then the total cash payment in a day to a particular party/creditor is exceeding Rs. 20,000/- which clearly is in violation of Section 40A(3) , as whether assessee making payment either through sales persons or agents is the same and the person to whom cash payment exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in a day is made is also one party Assessing Officer has not considered the issue in proper perspective and there is no estoppels against law.Thus, clearly the reassessment order passed by AO was erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, as to the enquiries and verification as ought to have been made by the AO were not made by AO during reassessment proceedings. The learned PCIT was justified in invoking its revisionary powers u/s 263, and the reassessment order dated 14.12.2018 passed by Assessing Officer u/s 147 read with Section 143(3) was rightly cancelled by ld. PCIT by invoking its revisionary powers u/s 263, and directions were rightly issued by ld. PCIT to AO to make fresh assessment denovo after investigating complete facts. We uphold the revisionary order passed by learned PCIT u/s 263 - assessee fails in this appeal which stand dismissed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order dated 14/12/2018 passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the I.T. Act.
2. Issuance of notice u/s 263 of the Act due to differing opinions between the PCIT and the Assessing Officer.
3. Invocation of clause (a) of explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act despite proper enquiry by the Assessing Officer.
4. Rejection of submissions and higher court orders cited by the assessee.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the order dated 14/12/2018 passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the I.T. Act:
The original assessment was completed on 30/03/2014, and the case was reopened under section 147 due to cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 in a day, which were not allowable as per Section 40A(3). The Assessing Officer accepted the assessee's contention that payments were made by different salesmen, each below Rs. 20,000, thus not violating Section 40A(3). However, the PCIT later found that the aggregate payments to a single creditor exceeded Rs. 20,000 in a day, which should have triggered further investigation.

2. Issuance of notice u/s 263 of the Act due to differing opinions between the PCIT and the Assessing Officer:
The PCIT issued a notice u/s 263, stating that the Assessing Officer did not properly examine the issue of cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 in a day. The PCIT held that despite payments being made by different salesmen, they were on behalf of the assessee, and the aggregate payments violated Section 40A(3). The PCIT found the Assessing Officer's acceptance of the assessee's explanation without deeper scrutiny to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue.

3. Invocation of clause (a) of explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act despite proper enquiry by the Assessing Officer:
The PCIT invoked clause (a) of explanation 2 to section 263, arguing that the Assessing Officer did not properly examine the necessity and genuineness of making cash payments through different salesmen. The PCIT emphasized that the Assessing Officer failed to consider whether these payments fell under exceptions provided under Rule 6DD. The reassessment order was thus considered erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

4. Rejection of submissions and higher court orders cited by the assessee:
The PCIT rejected the assessee's submissions and references to higher court orders, stating that the case laws cited were distinguishable on facts. The PCIT concluded that there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting such cash payments, and the Assessing Officer did not bring any such circumstances on record.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, agreeing that the Assessing Officer did not properly scrutinize the cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 in a day. The Tribunal found that the reassessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying the PCIT's invocation of revisionary powers under section 263. The appeal by the assessee was dismissed, and the reassessment order was canceled, directing the Assessing Officer to conduct a fresh assessment de novo after a thorough investigation.