9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,070/-. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) on 21-03-2014 wherein the total income was assessed at Rs.39,65,910/-. Thereafter, the AO found that the assessee had paid purchase consideration in contravention of section 40A(3) of the Act. The case was re-opened by means of a notice u/s.148. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 29-12-2016 determining total income of Rs.50,65,910/-. The ld. Pr. CIT observed that in the assessment made u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147, the Assessing Officer (AO) did not disallow Rs.1,06,72,500/- u/s.40A(3) of the Act but settled the disallowance only at Rs.11.00 lakh. That is how, he opined that remaining cash payments also ought to have been disallowed. He, therefore, invoked section 263 and passed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8572500 Total wrongly mentioned in Notice u/s.163 10672500 4. While finalizing the assessment u/s.143(3) rw.s.147, the AO disallowed the transactions at Sl. Nos. 5,6,7, 8 and 12 totalling to Rs.11.00 lakh only. The assessee stated before the ld. Pr.CIT that the remaining persons, to whom the cash payments were made, were residing in two villages, namely, (1) Pakahrsangvi and (2) Khandgaon, which were not served by any bank. In support of this contention, the assessee produced certificates dated 22-12-2016 from Gram Panchayat (Local Govt. authority) to the effect these villages were not served by any bank. Copies of such certificates were also provided to the A.O. during the assessment proceedings. Section 40A(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd still preferred to direct the AO to verify their veracity. Under such circumstances, we fail to comprehend as to how the assessment order can be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The position would have been different if the AO had accepted the contention of the assessee of being covered under rule 6DD(g) without any support of the certificates. Here is a case in which the assessee furnished necessary certificates from Gram Panchayat (Local Govt. authority) indicating that the recipients under consideration were living in two villages which were not served by any bank and the AO accepted genuineness of the certificates. In that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the AO in not ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tain to the original assessment proceedings. 7. The limitation for revision is contained in sub-section (2) of section 263 of the Act, being, a period of two years from the end of financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. Thus, an order u/s 263 is required to be passed within a period of two years from the end of financial year in which the order sought to be revised is passed. The impugned order u/s 263 has been passed in this case on 25.03.2019. Though the reassessment order was passed on 29.12.2016, the relevant assessment order for the purposes of advances from customers is the original assessment order, which was passed on 21.03.2014. The period of two years from the end of financial year in which the order wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
