9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1, therefore, the Pr. CIT in the garb of exercise of his revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act could not have sought for substitution of his view as against that arrived at by the Assessing Officer. We, thus, not being able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the exercise of the revisionary jurisdiction by the Pr. CIT u/s.263 of the Act set-aside his order and restore the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 60/NAG/2021 - - - Dated:- 29-4-2022 - Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member And Shri Jamlappa D Battull, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Mahavir Atal, CA For the Revenue : Shri Pradeep Headoo, CIT-DR ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Nagpur (for short Pr. CIT ) u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ), dated 30.03.2021, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, dated 30.11.2017 for assessment year 2013-14. Before us the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he business of construction of residential and commercial complexes was subjected to search proceedings u/s 132 of the Act on 01.12.2015. Subsequent to the search proceedings return of income was filed by the assessee u/s.153A of the Act on 16.03.2016, declaring an income of Rs.1,33,19,430/-. Assessment was thereafter framed by the Assessing Officer vide his order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, dated 30.11.2017, determining the income of the assessee at Rs.2,98,03,930/-. 3.1 After culmination of the assessment proceedings the Pr. CIT called for the assessment records of the assessee firm. It was observed by the Pr. CIT that the ACIT, Central Circle -1(1), Nagpur pursuant to a search that was conducted in the case of M/s. Nagpur Neuro Science Clinic Pvt. Ltd. (for short NNSCPL ), Nagpur had on the basis of an incriminating document, i.e., a loose sheet that was seized in the course of the aforesaid search proceedings shared certain information with the Assessing Officer. As per the aforesaid information, the assesee firm had over a period of 2-3 years, i.e., from 18.10.2011 to 24.02.2013 received an amount of Rs.1.10 crore [out of which an amount of Rs. 55 lacs and Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rely an afterthought. 5. Observing that the seized loose paper was the actual account of the assessee firm that was maintained by Dr. Chandrashekhar Pakhmude(supra), the Pr. CIT held a strong conviction that the cash payments therein mentioned were the unaccounted receipts of the assessee firm. Backed by the aforesaid facts, the Pr. CIT being of the view that the Assessing Officer had failed to examine the aforesaid issue, i.e., receipt of unaccounted cash by the assessee during the year under consideration, thus, held the order passed by him u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 30.11.2017 as erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s.263 of the Act and directed him to carry out necessary verifications and frame fresh assessment after conducting necessary enquiries. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee has assailed the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s.263 of the Act, dated 30.03.2011 in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d loose sheet No.50/Bundle No.1, he had categorically stated that the contents therein mentioned were budget estimates that were prepared in respect of paymentswhich were to be made in the coming period and no cash payment of Rs.70 lac (supra) was made to the assessee firm i.e. M/s. Concrete Developers. It was also submitted by the Ld. AR that Dr. Chandrashekhar Pakhmude (supra) had in his statement recorded u/s.131 of the Act, dated 03.11.2017 retracted from his earlier statement that was recorded u/s. 132(4) dated 13.02.2017 and had once again affirmed that no cash payment of Rs.70 lac (supra) was made to the assessee firm i.e. M/s. concrete developers. 8. Backed by the aforesaid facts, it was claimed by the Ld. AR that the issue in question i.e. impugned contents of the loose sheet No.50/ Bundle No.1 had duly been considered and deliberated upon by the Assessing Officer while framing the assessment vide his order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, dated 30.11.2017, wherein he being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee had refrained from drawing any adverse inferences on the basis of the aforementioned impugned notings. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cash 1000000 Total 11000000 Observing that the aforesaid incriminating document found and seized in the course of the search proceedings from the residential premises of Dr. Chandrashekhar Pakhmude (supra) read a/w the latters statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act in the course of the search proceedings referred to a cash payment of Rs.70 lacs (supra) over and above those made through cheque, the Assessing Officer had vide his letter dated 12.10.2017 called upon the assessee to put forth an explanation as to why the aforesaid amount may not be added to his unaccounted income for the respective years. For the sake of clarity, the aforesaid query that was raised by the Assessing Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings is culled out as under: In reply, the assesee after obtaining a copy of the statement of Dr. Chandrashekhar Pakhmude (supra) that was recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act a/w. copy of the seized loose sheet No.50/Bundle No.1, had thereafter, on 03.11.2017 cross-examined Dr. Chandrashekhar Pakhmude(supra). On a perusal of the statement of Dr. Chandrashekhar Pakhmude (supra) th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a presumption stated that the cash payments in question were made to M/s. Concrete Developers. 12. Also, we find that Dr. Chandrashekhar Pakhmude (supra) in his cross-examination by the assessee had categorically admitted that he had in his statement recorded u/s.132(4), dated 13.02.2017 remaining under significant stress had, therein, wrongly stated that the amount of Rs.70 lacs (supra) mentioned in the seized loose sheet No.50/ Bundle No.1 was paid to the assessee firm i.e.M/s.Concrete Developers. It was also categorically admitted by him that no payment of Rs.70 lacs (supra) was made by the hospital i.e.M/s. Neuron Brain Spine and Criticare Centre, Dhantoli, Nagpur to the assessee firm i.e. M/s.Concrete Developers. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we find that the Assessing Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings had queried at length as regards the contents of the seized loose sheet No.50/Bundle No.1 and had after exhaustive deliberations concurred with the assessee that no such payment of Rs.30 lacs(supra) was made by Dr. Chandrashekhar Pakhmude (supra) to the assesee during the year under consideration. 13. In the backdrop of our aforesaid observation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
