9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue must be fulfilled simultaneously at the cost of repetition. It is not a case of lack of enquiry, the Ld. PCIT while passing the order under section 263 held that Assessing Officer has not made adequate enquiry. Therefore the order passed by Ld. PCIT under section 263 is not sustainable and the same is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 83/RPR/2020 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2021 - Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Accountant Member And Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal - CA For the Revenue : Shri P.K. Mishra CIT(DR) ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur dated 31.03.2020 for assessment year (AY) 2010-11. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld PCIT has erred in giving direction u/s 263 to the ld AO for making fresh assessment by setting aside the assessment completed/s147 rws. 143(3) dt.15-11-17, while it is not so e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot produce the documentary proof, therefore, the difference of ₹ 6.69 lakhs is treated as business receipt. The AO worked out 8% income of business receipt of ₹ 6.69 lakhs thereby made addition of ₹ 53,562/-. The AO also made addition of ₹ 24,000/- on account of low household withdrawal in the assessment order dated 15.11.2017 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147. 3. Subsequently, the assessment order was revised by the ld. Pr.CIT vide order dated 31.03.2020. Before revising the assessment order, the ld. Pr.CIT issued show cause notice dated 27.02.2020. In the notice, the ld. Pr.CIT mentioned that he has examined the assessment record and observed that assessment order is erroneous and in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The assessment order is passed without making proper enquiries and verification. It is further noted that during the assessment, assessee stated that he is doing trading of wholesale business of cloth and garments products. The assessee made cash deposit of ₹ 45.37 lakhs in Axis Bank Account which includes ₹ 38.68 lakhs of business receipt and balance of ₹ 6.69 lakhs on capital account to maintain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. The explanation furnished by the assessee was not accepted by ld. Pr.CIT. The ld. Pr.CIT on all four issues reiterated his observation as mentioned in the show cause notice. The ld. Pr.CIT further held that the AO conducted inadequate enquiries and invoked the Explanation 2 of section 263. The ld. Pr.CIT concluded that assessment order is erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and set-aside the assessment order with the direction to the ld.AO to pass the assessment order afresh providing opportunity to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.Pr.CIT, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submission of the ld. Authorised Representative (AR) of the assesse and the learned CIT-DR for the revenue. The Ld. AR for the assessee also filed brief written synopsis. The ld.AR submits that in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed Return of Income on 28.08.2017 declaring income of ₹ 4.49 lakhs which comprise ₹ 3,09,474/- as business income under section 44AD of Gross Business Receipt of goods sold at ₹ 38,68,084/- and ₹ 84,890/- as commission income fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf and also not pointed out that how and in what manner the enquiry made by the ld.AO is not sufficient. To support his submission, the ld.AR for the assessee relied upon the following decisions: CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd (2009) 31 DTR 1 (Delhi High Court), Mukesh Jayantilal Kanakhara (2017) 184 TTJ 673 (Rajkot-Trib), Bodhisattva Chattopadhyay vs. CIT (2929) 185 DTR 89 (Kol-Trib) CIT Vs Nirav Modi (2016) 71 taxmann.com 272 ( Bombay High Court) ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del) 8. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue supported the order of Ld. PCIT. Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue further submits that the assessment order is silent about the various enquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer accepted the return of income declared by the assessee, without discussing the issues at length. 9. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that the case of assessee was re-opened on the basis of information received by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has made cash deposits in his bank account. The Assessing Officer issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015, cash book and bank statement. The assessee also claimed that assessee was having cash balance of ₹ 12.41 lakh as on 15.01.2015 and the cash balance in the immediately preceding months was ₹ 12.23 lakh, ₹ 12.02 lakh and ₹ 10.29 lakh as on 31.12.2014, 30.11.2014 and 30.10.2014 respectively. All these facts are not disputed by the Ld. CIT-DR. Considering the aforesaid factual and legal discussion, we find that the Assessing Officer made sufficient enquiries during the assessment and took reasonable and possible view. In our view, if the review taken by Assessing Officer is not acceptable Ld. PCIT, order under section 263 cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for revising the order Assessing Officer by invoking power under section 263 of the Act the twin condition i.e., order is erroneous and in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue must be fulfilled simultaneously at the cost of repetition. 11. We may further add that it is not a case of lack of enquiry, the Ld. PCIT while passing the order under section 263 held that Assessing Officer has not made adequate enquiry. Therefore the order passed by Ld. PCIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
