9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... njeev Singh, H.No.861 Sector-9, U.E., Karnal. Sir, Sub: Show cause Notice u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2011-12 - Regarding - This is with reference to the assessment order passed in your case u/s 143(3) of the Act on 10.01.2014 at an income of Rs. 6,30,545/- + agriculture income Rs. 5,00,000/-. A perusal of assessment record for the AY 2011-12 reveals that your case was selected for scrutiny through CASS to examine the source of cash deposit of Rs. 1,00,81,585/- in your saving bank account maintained with Induslnd Bank and PNB, Karnal. On being inquired by the AO with regard to source of the cash deposits of Rs. 1,00,81,585/-, you have furnished a reply dated 21.11 2013 contending that "Cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 14 Lacs was from agricultural produce sale, Rs. 4.02 Lacs from lease money, Rs. 27,38,922/- contra entries and Rs. 8 Lacs from gifts from your brother, totaling Rs. 53,40,922/-. The remaining cash deposits are out of sale proceeds of the bananas." Thus, the amount of Rs. 53,40,922/- remained unexplained and unverified on the following reasons:- (a) Agricultureincome has been declared by you in your return of income at Rs. 5 Lacs only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounted sales therefore, the Assessing Officer is not correct in doing so. Apart from the above issue, the ld.CIT also directed the Assessing Officer to tax the interest income that was not declared in the return of income. He also directed the Assessing Officer to treat the amount of Rs. 14.28 lakhs as unexplained contra entries (withdrawals from PNB and cash deposits in PNB). 3.1 Aggrieved with such order of the ld.CIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds:- "1. That the order of the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax is bad in law. 2. That the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in reopening the case of assessee U/s 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the applicant may be allowed to add, alter, amend and vary any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing." 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the IT Act. He submitted that the ld.CIT had issued notice u/s 263 for three issues out of which he has accepted the two issues and the only issue that remained for adjudication was the treatment of Rs. 15,39,513/- as unexplained dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the Assessing Officer that the cash deposit of Rs. 47,40,763/- i.e., Rs. 32,01,250/- + Rs. 15,39,513/- was out of the sale proceeds of banana. Referring to page 36 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the explanation filed before the Assessing Officer regarding Rs. 32,01,250/-. Referring to the copy of the assessment order he drew the attention of the bench to the fact that the Assessing Officer has also considered the amount of Rs. 15,39,513/- as income earned out of banana sales. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has applied the profit rate of 8.06%. Referring to various pages of the paper book, he submitted that the assessee has correlated each and every entry including the cash deposit of Rs. 15,39,903/-. He submitted that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view and, therefore, the jurisdiction u/s 263 is not maintainable. 8. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case PCIT vs. Lakshya Seth vide ITA No.398/2016, order dated 21st April, 2017, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that in cases where there is inadequate inquiry, but, lack of inquiry, the CIT may give a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the IT Act by the Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015, he submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, if in the opinion of the PCIT or CIT - (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119, or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. 10.1 He accordingly submitted that the grounds raised by the assessee be dismissed. 11. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the relevant material available on record. We have also considered the various decision cited before us. We find the assessment in the instant case was completed u/s 143(3) on 10th January, 2014 determining the total income at Rs. 6,30,545/- and agricultural inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not agree with the view of the Assessing Officer. However, it cannot be said that it is a case of no inquiry or that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is not a possible view. It has been held in various decisions that only absence of an inquiry empowers jurisdiction to the CIT to invoke the revisional power u/s 263. However, when there is some inquiry and the ld.CIT does not agree with the extent of inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer as sufficient, he cannot invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the IT Act. 13. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Leisure Wear Export reported in 341 ITR 166, has observed as under:- "The power of revision is not meant to be exercised for the purpose of directing the Assessing Officer to hold another investigation without describing as to how the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. From this it also follows that where the assessment order has been passed by the Assessing Officer after taking into account the assessee's submissions and documents furnished by him and no material whatsoever has been brought on record by the Commissioner which showed that there was any discrepancy or falsity in eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
