9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SV. It is also noticed the assessee has filed the necessary forms under the DTVSV scheme which have been accepted and therefore in our considered view the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court is clearly applicable to the assessee s case. Accordingly we hold that the PCIT is not justified in initiating the impugned proceedings under Section 263 of the Act when the assessee has opted to settle the dispute under DTVSV scheme. We therefore quash the order of PCIT and allow the appeal in favour of the assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d vegetable oil. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2017-18 on 05.11.2017 declaring a total income of Rs.1,46,760/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for and especially verifying the cash deposits during the demonetization period. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was duly served upon the assessee. The AO vide notice under Section 142(1) of the Act called for details such as computation of income, P&L Account, Balance Sheet and bank account statement. The bank account details of the assessee were obtained under Section 133(6) of the Act. The AO noticed certain discrepancies/violations on perusal of the details furnished by the assessee. There was a difference of Rs.11,36,909/- noticed by the AO in the closing cash balance of the assessee as of 31.12.2016. The AO called for further details in this regard. The assessee vide letter dated 25.11.2019 explained and reconciled the discrepancy of Rs.11,36,909/- which will result in an unexplained difference of Rs.92,838/-. Relevant statement of discrepancy and the reconciliation are reproduced below: - Particulars During Verification on 19/11/2019 As per assesse's reply on 25/11/2019 To ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee has made cash payment of Rs.46,678/- on 12.06.2016 towards inward carriage which is in contravention of Section 40A(3). However, this has not been disallowed by the Assessing Officer." 5. The PCIT issued show cause notice in response to which the assessee made submissions wherein it was stated that he has applied for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas (DTVSV) scheme and has filed a letter before the CIT(A) for withdrawal of his appeal filed against the order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee further submitted that the AO has already examined the details pertaining to the cash deposits during the assessment proceedings and has made the impugned addition by application of his mind. 6. The PCIT did not accept the submissions of the assessee and set aside the order of the AO by u/s. 263 of the Act. With regard to the submission that the assessee has opted for DTVSV the PCIT held as under: - "6. The Assessee has stated that he has opted for the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and has filed Form-4 under the VsV Scheme. He has not stated that any Form-5 has been issued and if Form-5 has not been issued, the process under the VsV Scheme cannot be said to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this the learned A.R. submitted that the same issue cannot be subject matter of revision proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. The learned A.R. in this regard relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case Gopalakrishnan Rajkumar vs. PCT (2022) 445 ITR 557 (Mad). On mderits the learned A.R. submitted that the AO had called for specific details with respect to the cash deposits made during the demonetization period and has considered all the bank accounts in the name of the assessee for this purpose. The fact that the AO had called for details with regard to the discrepancies found with respect to the details submitted makes it clear that the details submitted have been perused by the AO and he has applied his mind while accepting the reconciliation statement and made additions accordingly. 8. The learned D.R. submitted that mere furnishing of reconciliation statement and making additions does not evidence that the AO has conducted proper enquiries with regard to the cash deposits. Therefore, the learned D.R. supported the order of the PCIT. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We will consider the issue of whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by the Assessing Officer under subsection (13) thereof; (F) in a case where an application for revision under section 264 of the Income-tax Act is pending as on the specified date, the amount of tax payable by the appellant if such application for revision was not to be accepted: Provided that in a case where Commissioner (Appeals) has issued notice of enhancement under section 251 of the Income-tax Act on or before the specified date, the disputed tax shall be increased by the amount of tax pertaining to issues for which notice of enhancement has been issued: Provided further that in a case where the dispute in relation to an assessment year relates to reduction of tax credit under section 115JAA or section 115D of the Income-tax Act or any loss or depreciation computed thereunder, the appellant shall have an option either to include the amount of tax related to such tax credit or loss or depreciation in the amount of disputed tax, or to carry forward the reduced tax credit or loss or depreciation, in such manner as may be prescribed. (k) "Income-tax Act" means the Income-tax Act, 1961; (a) "last date" means such date as may be notified by the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Income-tax Act or not cannot be re-opened once again under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 46. Once the petitioners had opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, the proceedings initiated under section 263 have to go. If on the other hand the respective petitioners had not filed Form 1 and 2 or not accepted with the issue of Form 3, the Impugned Notice seeking to re-open the assessment under section 263 of the Incometax Act, 1961 could be justified. 47. The Finance Minister in her speech on 1-2-2020 announced the the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to bring down the litigation. The Government intended to reduce the litigation, so that the taxpayers can buy peace with the department. The aforesaid scheme was to be implemented on 30-6-2020. 48. The taxpayers whose appeals were pending at any level were entitled to avail benefit of the scheme. Therefore, there is no justification in proceeding further with the impugned proceedings initiated by the first respondent under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 49. Therefore, I am inclined to allow these writ petitions. Accordingly these writ petitions are allowed. No cost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
