9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of bank statements and other statement. To this specific query there is a specific reply given by the assessee which demonstrates that after receiving the information the AO had applied his mind on these transactions. More over the ld. CIT(A) has given a swiping statement that transaction between the assessee and the partnership firm (wherein assessee is partner) was exclusively through banking channel without rebutting the entries made in the cash book by the assessee duly supported by other independent evidence. As relying on ANIL KUMAR SHARMA [ 2010 (2) TMI 75 - DELHI HIGH COURT] since sufficient enquiry has been conducted by the Ld. AO during assessment proceedings with regard to the issues raised by the Ld. Pr. CIT in the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act and thus hold that Ld. Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and inferring that the assessing officer has not conducted enquiry. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.896/Ind/2018 - - - Dated:- 1-6-2020 - Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member And Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Appellant : S/Shri Asish Goyal N.D. Patwa, ARs For the Revenue : Shri S.S. Mantri, CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt order is erroneous and prejudicial and he thus set aside the assessment order vide order u/s 263 of the Act dated 28.09.2018 for examining the issue of unexplained cash deposit. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order issued by Ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act holding that the order of the assessing officer dated 08.11.2016 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and is liable to be set aside and thus erred by giving direction to the assessing officer to reframe the assessment after examining the issues of non-verification of source of cash deposit of ₹ 29,40,000/- made during financial year 2013-14. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the synopsis and paper book filed on 01.01.2020 as well as 07.02.2020 submitted that the assessing officer has called for specific details about the cash deposit. Necessary replies were furnished during the assessment proceedings along with details including copies of capital accounts of the partnership firm wherein the assessee is partner, cash book showing the availability of cash in various dates. All these details have been examined by the assessing officer and after being satisfie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re us, on examination of details, we found that during the course of assessment proceeding notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 13.04.2016 was issued by the assessing officer. In this notice 15 types of details were called out of which one related to source of cash deposit of more than ₹ 20,000/- in the bank. First reply to this notice was filed on 13.04.2016 and thereafter another reply was filed on 28.04.2016 in which the complete details of bank account were filed by the assessee. Copies of partner s capital account in books of partnership firm were also filed. Narration of each entry was mentioned in the cash book submitted before assessing officer running from pages 25 to 29. There are regular transactions of cash receipts and cash payments. There is no negative balance at any particular date. Source of cash deposit of ₹ 29,40,000/- is generally from the cash received from partnership firms wherein the assessee is a partner and out of the accumulated balance available on various dates. Ld. Assessing Officer after considering these details accepted the submission and was satisfied with the source of cash deposits. Thus the case before us is not the case where no enqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter in writing and the assessing officer allows the claim on being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the decision of the assessing officer cannot be held to be erroneous simply because in his order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. 12. Further in the case of Krishna Capbox(P) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 310(Allahabad) held that where assessing officer passed assessment order after certain queries from assessee mere nondiscussion or non-mention thereof in assessment order could not lead to assumption that assessing officer did not apply his mind; invoking of revision proceeding under section 263 on said ground was unjustified. 13. We also find that recently Coordinate bench, Kolkata in the case of Satya Prakash Sharma vs. Pr. CIT vide ITANo.2574 to 2576/Kol/2018 order dated 22.11.2019 adjudicating similar issue laid down the proposition that wherein enquiry was conducted by the assessing officer, even if inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the ld. Pr. CIT to interdict and interfere by exercising his revisional jurisdiction merely because he is of the opinion that some more enquiries should have been conducted in the matter. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal that the present case would not be one of, lack of inquiry even if the inquiry was termed inadequate. The Tribunal found that complete details were filed before the Assessing Officer and that he applied his mind to the relevant material and fact, although such application of mind is not discernable from the assessment order. The Tribunal held that, the Commissioner in proceedings under Section 263 also had all these details and material available before him, but not been able to point out defects conclusively in the material, for arriving at a conclusion that particular income had escaped assessment on account of nonapplication of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal was right and the order of revision was not valid . 16. The above judgment squarely applies on the facts of instant case and therefore, we are of the considered view that since sufficient enquiry has been conducted by the Ld. AO during assessment proceedings with regard to the issues raised by the Ld. Pr. CIT in the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act and thus hold that Ld. Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and inferring that the assessing officer has not conducted en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
