9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould have been done. One very glaring fact which is evident from the impugned order of the ld. Pr. CIT, (the whole of which has been reproduced above) is that, nowhere the ld. Pr. CIT has held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The basic requisite condition for acquiring the jurisdiction under Section 263 and cancelling the assessment order is that, the ld. Pr. CIT has to give categorical finding as to how the assessment order is erroneous and not only that, he has to show that it is also prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Both the conditions have to be satisfied and is to be specified by the Ld. PCIT, in case he intends to set-aside the assessment order. Once the Assessing Officer has taken a view based on the explanation as well as evidence filed by the assessee, it cannot be the case of lack of enquiry. At the best, it is inadequate enquiry and, therefore, in such a situation the assessment order cannot be cancelled or set aside. Accordingly, we hold that in absence of any charge by the ld. Pr. CIT that assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, assessment or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). The assessee in compliance to such notice filed his explanation and gave evidences for the source of deposits. Assessing Officer after considering the replies and evidences accepted the source of deposit and assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 27.09.2016 accepting the returned income of ₹ 5,50,610/-. 4. Thereafter, Pr. CIT, Delhi - 24, issued a show-cause notice u/s 263 of the I.T. Act dated 13.06.2018 providing an opportunity to the appellant to file an explanation. In the said show cause notice it was inter-alia stated as under:- a) In the assessment order the A.O. has accepted returned income of ₹ 5,50,610/- whereas thecase was selected for limited scrutiny under cash with the reason large cash deposit in the bank account . b) Perusal of records reveals that the assessee deposited ₹ 54,96,000/- and ₹ 21,10,000/- in bank account with PNB and ICICI bank respectively during the period 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014. The assessee had furnished on record during the assessment proceedings that amount of ₹ 11,00,000/- in cash was received as rent and remaining cash of ₹ 64,88,000/- was received from various persons/relatives as gifts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounting to ₹ 75.98.000/- in his saving bank accounts. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that ₹ 11,10,000/- was rent received in cash which was included in his ITR and remaining cash amounting to ₹ 64,88,000/- were received from various persons/relatives as gifts/against sale of agricultural products. In support of his claim assessee had filed only some hand written confirmations. No other details like PAN/ITRs of those persons' were filed so as to establish identity and creditworthiness of the persons from whom cash was received. Therefore, the assessee failed to prove identity and creditworthiness of parties as well as genuineness of transaction was also not established. The AO should not have accepted the reply of the assessee and un-explained cash deposit of ₹ 64,88,000/- should have been treated as un-explained income of the assessee. 3. In response to notice u/s 263, the assessee submitted reply through letter dated 06.07.2018 6.08.2018 stated therein that all the necessary details/ confirmations from the persons from whom the amount was received have been filed during the course or assessment proceedings. The claim of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TR. 9. The ld. Counsel submitted that it is not a case of lack of enquiry and the only case of the ld. Pr. CIT in the order under Section 263 is that the Assessing Officer should have made further enquiry rather than accepting the assessee s explanation. Thus, it cannot be held that there was a case of lack of enquiry. In support he relied upon the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 189 Taxman 436 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers 194 Taxman 57 (Del). It was further submitted that the ld. Pr. CIT himself should have carried out any enquiry to dislodge the facts and the material filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings and he simply cannot submit the case to the Assessing Officer which has been based after proper examination and investigation of the issue for which it was selected for scrutiny. At least Ld. PCIT should have carried out some minimum enquiry to show that the Assessing Officer should have undertook any enquiry to bring any material to discredit the assessee s explanation. In support he relied upon the following decisions:- (a) CIT Vs. Delhi Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 705/2017 (Del.) - (Para 10); ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the source thereof. The only allegation made by the ld. Pr. CIT that the Assessing Officer should not have accepted the assessee s reply. Nowhere Ld. PCIT had himself tried to carry out some enquiry at his level so as to prima facie indicate that the explanation as well as the evidences filed by the assessee are not reliable and cannot be accepted specifically when the cash was stated to be received from relatives and agriculturists. The Assessing Officer has accepted certain explanation and was satisfied with the evidence in the form of confirmations from the parties, then it was incumbent upon the ld. Pr. CIT to dislodge and explanation carrying out some verification and enquiry from any of the parties which could have been the basis for justifying that there was lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer. The assessment order passed after due verification and examination simply cannot be set aside on the ground that some more or further enquiry should have been done. 13. Apart from that, one very glaring fact which is evident from the impugned order of the ld. Pr. CIT, (the whole of which has been reproduced above) is that, nowhere the ld. Pr. CIT has held that the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
