9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 307 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - deposit of cash during the demonetization period - mis-match in the postings - HELD THAT - We would only refer to page wherein the PCIT states that the pattern of small cash deposits against the retention of such a huge cash in hand thus exposes the brazen manipulation of cash - We find such rash observation as unfortunate scandalous attempt to arouse alarm and suspicion. This manner of writing an order can not be approved. The authorities should desist from resorting to making scandalous assertions de-hors facts - assessee's explanation that considering the peculiar factual circumstances where during this specific period, Country saw huge lines of people standing outside banks. The environment of standing with huge cash deemed to be unsafe by the assessee. Thus assessee had exercised safety and caution and deposited smaller amounts on different dates is a valid explanation considering the then prevailing realities and cannot be outrightly discarded as an erroneous explanation accepted by the AO. We find that this consistent explanation remains ignored by the PCIT. Accordingly, on a consideration of the factual matrix of the present case, we find that the impugned order being arbitrary and whimsical on facts deserves to be quashed. It is not a case wherein the AO can be said to have passed the order without carrying out necessary enquiries. We have seen on record that the explanation offered by the assessee has been faulted with by the AO initially. The assessee has been required to re-file the same with proper comparative details addressing the reasons for the deposits made on different dates. The explanation is on record and has not been shown to be incorrect and infact the ground realities requiring the assessee to deposit the amounts on the specific dates has remained unrebutted on record. Historical factual position also remains unrebutted on record. Hence on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. We do not deem it necessary to address the decisions relied upon by the issues are very fact specific. No decisions need to be cited for the well settled legal position that merely because an order is cryptic, that fact itself cannot lead to the conclusion that the AO has failed to apply his mind. The tax authorities may consider training the Departmental officers to write the orders in the manner deemed fit. Possibly specifically to address these issues the CBDT Board has mandated that the raising of queries and receipt of information must flow through the ITBA portal. The well settled position that it is the material available on record which would show whether the AO can be said to have applied his mind in the facts of a peculiar case or not needs no specific citation. In the facts of the present case, we find due application of mind of the AO is fully established. Accordingly, decisions relied upon by the ld. AR, we find do not require any specific discussion. We still deem it necessary to address the decision in the case of Ashwani Marwah 2022 (3) TMI 466 - ITAT CHANDIGARH relied upon by the ld. CITDR - on going through the said decision that the conclusion arrived at therein is very fact specific and does not have any play on the facts of the present case. The assessee took the position that the issue taken into consideration by the ld. PCIT was beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny as the selection for the specific case under CASS was only to examine sundry creditors and sales turnover mis-match PCIT amongst other issues had examined the ledger and vouchers payable and the assessment order was set aside. The Co-ordinate Bench on the other issues in regard to mis-match of figures etc. pointed out held that it was explained and there was no mis-match. The lack of enquiry on labour and wages payable were glaring areas highlighted by the PCIT and these have been upheld by the ITAT. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of PCIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Adequacy of Assessing Officer's (AO) inquiries during assessment. 3. Validity of PCIT's findings on cash deposits during the demonetization period. 4. Reliance on audit objections for assuming jurisdiction under Section 263. 5. Miscellaneous grounds raised by the assessee. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of PCIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee challenged the jurisdiction assumed by the PCIT under Section 263, arguing that the AO had raised specific queries during the assessment proceedings, which were duly replied to with numerous details. The PCIT, however, found the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, primarily due to inadequate inquiries by the AO. 2. Adequacy of Assessing Officer's (AO) inquiries during assessment: The AO had accepted the returned income after scrutinizing all the information/documents called for during the assessment proceedings. The PCIT, however, held that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries, particularly regarding cash deposits during the demonetization period. The PCIT noted that the AO did not raise sufficient queries or verify the explanations provided by the assessee. 3. Validity of PCIT's findings on cash deposits during the demonetization period: The PCIT found discrepancies in the assessee's explanations for cash deposits during the demonetization period. The PCIT noted that the cash deposits were not in sequence and were less than Rs. 20,000 on each date, raising suspicions of manipulation. The PCIT also highlighted that the AO did not verify the cash deposits through independent inquiries. The assessee countered these findings by providing detailed explanations and historical data showing similar cash deposits in previous years. The explanation that smaller amounts were deposited on different dates as a safety measure during the demonetization period was also provided. 4. Reliance on audit objections for assuming jurisdiction under Section 263: The assessee argued that the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 based on audit objections, which is not permissible as per binding judgments of the Jurisdictional Bench of the ITAT and the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. However, this ground was not pressed by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. 5. Miscellaneous grounds raised by the assessee: The assessee raised several other grounds, including the adequacy of household drawings, the validity of godown rent, and the correctness of stock valuation. The PCIT found these explanations vague and unsupported by proper documentation. Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries during the assessment proceedings and that the explanations provided by the assessee were reasonable and supported by historical data. The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order, holding that the PCIT's findings were based on conjectures and suspicions without proper evidence. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the assessment order passed by the AO was upheld.
|
