2023 (4) TMI 86 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - lack of enquiry/no enquiry v/s inadequate enquiry - cash deposit arising from the return and the reason for CASS selection have been examined from the reply of the assessee's representative - HELD THAT - We have to understand that lack of enquiry/no enquiry is different from inadequate enquiry and it is only in case of no enquiry by the AO, Pr. CIT/C1T can exercise jurisdiction u/s 263 and not in case where the AO has made enquiries as seems appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instance case inquiry on relevant issue has been made by AO, hence no action invited u/s 263. Under the facts and circumstances, the provisions as contained in clause (a) of Explanation 2 to sub section (1) of Section 263 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable in the present case. Since, the A.O. has made all enquiries regarding the cash flow statement from the State Bank of India as well as from the Punjab National Bank and the deposit was also confirmed from the certificate issued by M/s Amar Nath Kashmiri Lai and the status of the farmer earning Rs. 30.00 Lacs per annum and the payments for expenses thereof and hence, the assessment order cannot be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudice to the interest of the revenue. We hold that the impugned order passed by the PCIT is perverse to facts on record in holding assessment order erroneous and prejudice to the interest of revenue on account of lack of enquiry. Accordingly, the order passed by the PCIT -1, Jalandhar u/s 263, is cancelled being bad in law. Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Adequacy of opportunity of being heard provided to the assessee.
3. Examination of facts and queries by the Assessing Officer (AO) during assessment proceedings.
4. Verification of cash deposits and cash flow statements during demonetization.
5. Applicability of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality of the PCIT's Order under Section 263
The assessee challenged the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, contending that it was against the facts of the case and untenable under the law. The Tribunal held that the AO had made adequate inquiries and the PCIT's order was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the PCIT had not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the cash flow statement or any error in the AO's acceptance of the assessee's claims.

Issue 2: Adequacy of Opportunity of Being Heard
The assessee argued that no reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard was allowed by the PCIT before passing the order under Section 263. The Tribunal found that the PCIT had issued a show cause notice, and the assessee had duly filed a reply. However, the Tribunal concluded that the PCIT did not properly consider the reply and facts presented by the assessee.

Issue 3: Examination of Facts and Queries by the AO
The Tribunal observed that the AO had examined the relevant supporting documentary evidence and other information submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The AO was satisfied with the explanations provided by the assessee regarding cash deposits during the demonetization period and had accepted the return income. The Tribunal held that the AO had made appropriate inquiries and the PCIT's assertion of lack of inquiry was baseless.

Issue 4: Verification of Cash Deposits and Cash Flow Statements
The PCIT raised concerns about the discrepancies in the cash flow statement, particularly regarding the source of cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided detailed explanations and supporting documents, including bank statements and certificates from commission agents, to justify the cash deposits. The Tribunal found that the AO had duly verified these documents and accepted the assessee's claims.

Issue 5: Applicability of Section 263
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in "Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs. CIT" and other relevant cases, emphasizing that an order cannot be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue if the AO had adopted a plausible view. The Tribunal concluded that the AO had made all necessary inquiries and verifications, and therefore, the provisions of Section 263 were not applicable in this case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was perverse to the facts on record and not justified. The order passed by the PCIT was cancelled, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO had made adequate inquiries and the PCIT's action was not sustainable under the law.

← Previous Next →