9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 408 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - Unexplained cash deposits made during the demonetization period in his bank account - HELD THAT - We observe that the AO has not examined the details with respect to cash deposits made during the demonetization period in his bank account as per the CBDT guidelines with the supporting documents, he has submitted only a letter and certificate from the bank, which is placed and we do not find anywhere that there was any enquiry made by the AO in this regard viz. cash opening, availability of cash and application of cash during the demonetization period. We also observe that the AO has not verified the cash deposited by the partners and also loan taken from Dr. HT Memorial Trust and cash embezzlement and interest free advances to related persons. All these things are not been examined by the AO. DR has rightly pointed out that ld.Pr.CIT has rightly exercised his revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act and the AO has failed to do discharge his duty in accordance with law. AO is investigating officer thereafter he is adjudicating officer. The order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act has rightly been set aside by the ld.Pr.CIT in exercising his jurisdictional power is upheld. We upheld the order passed by the ld.Pr.CIT and the AO is directed make fresh assessment in accordance with law following the CBDT guidelines in regard to cash deposited during the demonetization period The AO is also directed to carry out his examination as per the decision mentioned in the case of Bhoopalam Marketing Services 2022 (11) TMI 331 - ITAT BANGALORE - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Issues:
Challenge to revisionary powers exercised by ld.Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act for passing a fresh assessment order. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the order passed by the ld.Pr.CIT exercising revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act. The case involved the assessment of income where the AO had made certain observations and completed the assessment. However, the ld.Pr.CIT found the AO's order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld.Pr.CIT specifically noted that the AO had not conducted a thorough enquiry as per CBDT guidelines, especially regarding cash deposits during the demonetization period. The ld.Pr.CIT issued show cause notices to the assessee, who did not appear, leading the ld.Pr.CIT to decide the matter based on available records. The ld.Pr.CIT relied on various judgments to support the decision. The assessee contended that all necessary compliances were met during the assessment proceedings, and the AO had not disputed any issues raised by the ld.Pr.CIT. The assessee argued that the AO had correctly assessed the income, and there was no error in the order passed. The ld.AR of the assessee also presented additional documents to support their case. On the other hand, the ld.DR supported the ld.Pr.CIT's order, emphasizing the lack of proper enquiry by the AO, especially regarding demonetization period cash deposits. Upon thorough examination, the Tribunal observed that the AO had not adequately examined the details related to cash deposits during the demonetization period, as per CBDT guidelines. The Tribunal noted the absence of verification regarding cash deposits, loans, embezzlement, and interest-free advances. The Tribunal agreed with the ld.Pr.CIT's decision to set aside the AO's assessment order and direct a fresh assessment in accordance with the law and CBDT guidelines. The Tribunal referred to a similar case decided by a coordinate bench, emphasizing the importance of proper verification and examination in such cases. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the ld.Pr.CIT's order, directing the AO to conduct a fresh assessment following CBDT guidelines for cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination and proper verification in such cases, as demonstrated in the cited case. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 27th day of September, 2022.
|
