9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod of Rs.26 lakhs, though the correct figure is Rs.26,50,000/-. When this is examined along with the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2019, it shows that in assessment order in the second last paragraph the opening cash balance has been examined in total by the AO by verifying the returns of the earlier years. Thus, clearly the issues as has been proposed by the ld. Pr.CIT, has already been examined by the AO and the ld. Pr.CIT under the guise of revision u/s.263 is only proposing to force his opinion over that as arrived at by the ld. AO. This is not permissible in the revisionary proceedings u/s.263 of the Act. Consequently, the order passed u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. Pr.CIT stands unsubstantiated and the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther submitted that the ld. Pr.CIT took the stand that the opening cash balance had not been examined nor was cash in hand as on 08.11.2016 examined. Consequently, the ld. Pr.CIT took the stand that considering the deposits of cash by the assessee in its bank account; the assessee could not have had the requisite cash in hand to deposit to an extent of Rs.9 lakhs. To arrive at this figure, the ld. Pr.CIT adopted the total cash deposit at Rs.26,00,000/- and reduced the total sale proceeds at Rs.17,01,700/- to arrive at a figure of Rs.9 lakhs and treated the same as unexplained investment and directed the AO to redo the assessment de novo. Ld. AR has also filed his written submission which reads as under : - That the asseesse is an HUF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both figures is more than Rs.29 lakhs. It was the submission that it is out of this amount the assessee has deposited the amount of Rs.26,50,000/-. It was the submission that the ld. Pr.CIT is now attempting to place his opinion over that of the AO to direct the AO to examine the total cash received by the assessee during the relevant assessment year and to make addition of Rs.9 lakhs. It was the submission that in fact the ld. Pr.CIT himself accepted that the gross total turnover of the assessee during the relevant assessment year is at Rs.17,01,700/-. Even if this figure is considered along with the opening cash balance of Rs.16,69,474/-, the total would be more than Rs.33 lakhs and even this would cover of cash deposit of Rs.26,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to hold that the opening cash balance was not properly explained. Consequently the ld. Pr.CIT drew the conclusion that the amount of Rs.9 lakhs representing Rs.26 lakhs less Rs.17,01,700/- was unexplained. Thus, a perusal of para 3 of the ld. Pr.CIT s order shows that he has accepted the total turnover of the assessee at Rs.17,01,700/-. He has accepted the deposit in the bank during the demonetization period of Rs.26 lakhs, though the correct figure is Rs.26,50,000/-. When this is examined along with the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2019, it shows that in page 3 of the assessment order in the second last paragraph the opening cash balance of Rs.16,69,474/- has been examined in total by the AO by verifying the retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
