9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer is on account of inadequate enquiry and non-application of mind to the facts of the case presented by the assessee. Therefore the Ld. PCIT set aside the erroneous assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, with a direction to examine the issues afresh and determine the appropriate tax liability by giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. PCIT. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 63/IND/2022 - - - Dated:- 3-1-2023 - Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri B.M. Biyani, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Manish Dafaria, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the Revision order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore-1, passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and deriving income from Business Profession and Income from Other Sources. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 of the Act, the assessment order is proposed to be revised. The assessee was given a show cause notice to explain why the proposed Revision should not be carried out. In response, the assessee submitted that Specific queries had been raised by the Ld. A.O. during the original assessment proceedings. A proper and detailed explanations had been submitted by the assessee on the cash deposits namely withdrawal of Rs. 13,74,000/- in the earlier year had been submitted to the Ld. A.O. and the same had been used for disbursing loan to agriculturists/villagers. 2.3. After considering the above reply, the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee s explanation. Thus the Assessment order passed in consequence of proper verification cannot be treated as erroneous order or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The assessee submitted copy of the Sale Deed to the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. After going through the registered Sale Deed, the Assessing Officer accepted the claim of exemption u/s. 2(14) of the Act and the accepted the Nil income of capital gains. Thus the Ld. PCIT is not correct in invoking Revision proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act and relying upon v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal, the Ld. CIT erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the very same issues which had been scrutinized by the A ssessing Officer specifically while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. 3.1. Ld. Counsel Mr. Manish Dafaria appearing for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Ld. PCIT and filed a Paper Book and compilation of case laws. Ld. Counsel taken us through page no. 21 of the Paper Book wherein the Assessing Officer vide 142(1) notice requested the following: 4. Please furnish the details of cash deposit in Bank and sources thereof alongwith evidence if any and also submit comparative details regarding deposit of cash in Bank for the preceding previous year. . 6. Please justify reason description- 1. Transfer of property reported in SFT but capital gains is not declared in Return of Income. 2. Large Cash deposits in bank account and assessee has also purchased/sold one or more property (ies) during the year. 3.2. The assessee replied to the Assessing Officer as follows: 4. The details of cash deposited during the year under consideration and in earlier year- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i bahi, girvi ledger etc. These few facts of the business-style justifies the cash deposits in the banks. Further during demonation period, a reasonable cash was deposited. .. 6. As regard Sale/Transfer of Property, the facts to be looked into as under- The assessee had purchased an agriculter land at Village KUMHARI on 4/07/2004 in Rs. 2,91,000 + purchase exp Rs. 3,03,00/-. The Purchase deed of the said agriculture land is available with the assessee. Total Area available for sale as on 01/04/2016 as under:- Khasara Number 62/5 62/4 Total Area in Hct. 0.101 0.039 Sold On 27/04/16 5962 Area Sold Hct 0.045 -0.039 Sale Amount 31,55,000 Sold with 62/2 Sold on 02/08/16 Area Sold in Hct -0.056 Sale Amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uash the Revision order. 4. Per contra, the Ld. CIT-DR Shri P.K. Mishra appearing for the Revenue submitted that the original assessment was taken up for scrutiny assessment only for limited scrutiny namely to verify transfer of property reported in SFT but capital gains is not declared in Return of Income and verify the large cash deposits in the bank account by the assessee. 4.1. On perusal of the assessment order as well as the 142(1) notices, the Assessing Officer has not made proper and necessary enquiry on the sale of agriculture lands and whether the assessee has returned any agricultural income in the preceding two assessment years from the above lands by the assessee. The Assessing Officer also has not verified why the assessee filed the Return of Income in Form No. 1, which is not eligible to be filed by the assessee, who is claimed to be engaged in the business of money lending. The Ld. Assessing Officer has simply accepted the submissions of the assessee without making any proper enquiry while passing the assessment order and also allowed the claim of exemption u/s. 2(14) on sale of land. As held by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detailed inquiry. It is this order which is upheld by the High Court. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 5.2. Further, the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nagal Garment Industries (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 4 (M.P.) has upheld the findings of the Tribunal as follows: 8. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman.com 66, the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 and CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 69 taxmann.com 170/240 Taxmann 221/384 ITR 200 (SC) relevant extracts of which have been quoted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in paragraphs 4..2 and 4.3 of its order, has arrived at a conclusion that as the Assessing Officer has passed the order of assessment without making a proper enquiry and without applying his mind to the return and the documents filed by the assessee, as such the order is erroneous as well as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
