9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is consistent explanation remains ignored by the PCIT. Accordingly, on a consideration of the factual matrix of the present case, we find that the impugned order being arbitrary and whimsical on facts deserves to be quashed. It is not a case wherein the AO can be said to have passed the order without carrying out necessary enquiries. We have seen on record that the explanation offered by the assessee has been faulted with by the AO initially. The assessee has been required to re-file the same with proper comparative details addressing the reasons for the deposits made on different dates. The explanation is on record and has not been shown to be incorrect and infact the ground realities requiring the assessee to deposit the amounts on the specific dates has remained unrebutted on record. Historical factual position also remains unrebutted on record. Hence on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. We do not deem it necessary to address the decisions relied upon by the issues are very fact specific. No decisions need to be cited for the well settled legal position that merely because a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncelling the assessment as already framed by the AO vide order dated 24.12.2019 to the file of the Assessing Officer, with the direction to frame the assessment, afresh in accordance with law, after granting reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 2. That the Ld. PCIT, Panchkula has failed to appreciate that on all the issues, which have been taken in the show-cause notice u/s 263, the Assessing Officer had raised specific queries, during the course of assessment proceedings and which were replied with numerous details and, thus, the Assessing Officer had, duly, applied his mind to all such details, copies of accounts and other voluminous details furnished to the Assessing Officer and had taken a conscious decision in respect of all the information and framed the assessment on the basis of the details furnished by the assessee. 3. That the Ld. PCIT, Panchkula had not considered the detailed reply of the assessee properly, furnished during the course of proceedings u/s 263 and had mislead herself, while giving a finding on various issues, particularly, ignoring the fact, that the deposit of cash during the demonetization period from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 was to the tu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the case of CIT Vs Nirav Modi over and above the decisions filed, it was argued that the order passed by the AO after raising queries and examining documents cannot be set aside by a casual exercise. Once the view of the AO was a plausible view, it was argued the order cannot be set aside on whims. 3.1 It was submitted that he would be in a position to demonstrate that on facts more than adequate enquiries have been made by the AO in the present case before the passing of the order. It was submitted that infact the impugned order on the contrary is based on conjectures. All facts referred to in the Show Cause Notice by the PCIT, it was submitted, are emanating from the detailed queries made by the AO. These queries, it was submitted, have been replied to by the assessee. Referring to the order, it was submitted, that the ld.PCIT apart from reproducing the replies of the assessee to the AO has made no effort whatsoever to show how the reply made available to the AO and considered by the Assessing Officer is seen to be an error which is sought to be addressed by exercising the Revisionary powers u/s 263. 3.2 Reading from the order, it was submitted that from pages 1 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eposits. Attention was also invited to the fact that the assessee was also required to provide analysis of month-wise cash sale and cash deposits from 01.04.2015 to 08.11.2015 and 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016. Pages 75 to 76, it was submitted, elaborate the queries raised by the AO in the course of the assessment proceedings by the aforesaid notice issued to the assessee which amongst other issues included specific queries on cash deposits made not only in the different periods for the year under consideration but also required the assessee to provide these comparative details for the earlier years. Enquiry, it was submitted, was also made on cash sales by the assessee for these earlier years and the year under consideration. Thus, the facts in the present year were found similar to the earlier years. The enquiries and information provided on cash sales as per past practice looking at the assessee's peculiar customer base were all duly made. These were coupled with purchases made by the assessee not only for the year under consideration but also for the last 2 years. These were looked into in detail by making available comparative month-wise details. These were read out and relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lable on record. No independent enquiry by the ld. PCIT it was submitted, has been made to show that the replies made available were incorrect on facts. The effort is a mechanical exercise of power. Attention was invited to Paper Book page 112-113 which was again a copy of the reply submitted in the course of the assessment proceedings to the AO where the assessee had provided the further details sought for by the AO. For ready reference, the said reply relied upon is extracted hereunder : 3.6 The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee is in trading of fertilizers and all purchases are largely from Government companies. It was further submitted that majority of its sales are made to licensed dealers in khad etc. who are appointed by Agriculture Department of Haryana and some retain sales are also made. The sales to the retailers have all along over the years has as a matter of practice been made in cash and also on credit basis. It was submitted that the assessee has been carrying on its business from two places, one is in Ambala functioning under the name of Haryana Khad Store , and the other is at Yamuna Nagar working under the name of Khurana Trading Co. . The asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received during demonetization period and comparative details of cash deposits in the bank account in the financial year 2015-16 and 2016-17 were also made available and are on record. These facts remain unrebutted. For ready reference, accompanying letter at page 123 is reproduce hereunder: 3.9 Attention was invited to comparative details of cash sales during Financial Year 2015-16 and 2016-17 at page 127 and copy of the Ledger Account of Bonus payable in the books of Khurana Trading Co. from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2018 at page 128. Attention was also invited to Paper Book page 129 copy of the reply dated 20.12.2019 which is filed before AO. Referring to the same, it was submitted that it addresses the nature of business of the assessee and also explains why cash sales have been made. It was submitted that as per record, the assessee had argued that the assessee's product fertilizer used primarily by farmers as per past practice has always been purchased either from small scale retailers in rural areas or at times directly to the farmers in the rural areas. 3.10 Relying on these documents available it was submitted that the evidence demonstrating the nature of queri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s was only a method to ensure that whatever sales are made, payments received in lieu thereof is duly recorded and made available to the assessee. It was further objected that considering the cash in hand considered to be huge the ld. PCIT presumes to question the prudence of the assessee in the Revisionary order. The conjecture that maintaining cash in hand is questionable and the allegations that huge cash sale is unprecedented in the business history of the assessee, it was submitted is contrary to facts. It was submitted that as a matter of fact in the year under consideration, cash sales are less as compared to the earlier years. It was his submission that the modus-operandi of the assessee is that for the sales made to small scale outlets and small farmers at the time of the sale, if possible, the payments are collected and receipt may be issued etc. This has been a continuous practice of the assessee over the years as per record. Thus, it was argued that the record and past history is available on record. Month-wise details have been given. Accordingly, the allegations made by the Revenue based on conjectures, it was submitted, are de-hors the facts. Reply of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourse of assessment and verify all the documents thoroughly. 7. In a reply to para 4.2, 4.3 4.4 of your notice it is explained that during the course of assessment Ld. A.O. has thoroughly checked all the record produced for kind verification. There is no bogus entries in the cash books. All the entries have been made as per receipt issued to Sundry Debtors on receipt as cash from Sundry Debtors. Receipt Books have been produced before Ld. A.O. during the course of assessment. Further, it is informed that one receipt book is kept in office and another receipt books given to two to three persons who goes to different markets for collections on different routes on same date that i.e. pattern or sequence in the receipt No. are different because three to four receipt books used simultaneously. 8. In reply to para no. 4.5 of your notice, As already all the person know in one day Rs. 20000/- can be given in cash and at the time of collection Sundry Debtors given Rs. 20000/- in one day, which is valid as per provision of Section 40A(3) r.w. rule 6DD. 9. In reply to para no. 4.6 of your notice, no cash receipt entries/vouchers no. had been manipulated, cash is only recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eposit 01.04.2015 to 08:11:2015 and 09.11.2015 to 31.12.2015 and also asked about cash deposit 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016 and 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. This information was submitted during the course of assessment and already on the file and detail of analysis submitted during the course of assessment is as under- Comparative chart of cash deposit in financial year 2015-16 2016-17 is as under:- The Ld. A.O. thoroughly checked above said figures and from the above chart it is evident that Rs. 9750000/- has been deposited in bank, 09.11.2015 to 31.12.2015 which is not a demonetization period During the demonetization period 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 cash of Rs. 9745000/- has been deposited. Cash of Rs. 13141500/- has been deposited during the period 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016 as compare to proceeding year Rs. 15823310/- during the period 01.04.2015 to 08.11.2015. Total cash deposit in Tank in financial year 2016-17 is Rs. 30748850/-as compare to total cash deposit in bank Rs. 32382310/- in the financial year 2015-16. I have also deposited the cash in the post demonetization period as per requirement of the business, the fact was duly explained during the course of assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hold drawing are 204000/- I am 74 years old living along with my wife in my own house. I belongs to agriculture family vegetables, wheat, paddy comes from own agriculture land living with my son. Keeping in view the size status of the family drawings of Rs. 204000/- is quite sufficient. The Ld. A.O. asked about house hold expenses during the course of assessment and I have explained about house hold expenses to Ld. A.O. 19. Cash book for the period 01-04-2016 to 31-03-2017 has been produced for the verification during the course of assessment and Ld. A.O checked the cash book of every dates of full Financial Year. And copy of cash book for the period 01-04-2016 to 31-03-2017 placed on the file relevant to the A.Y. 2017-18. The ld. A.O has also checked the Balance of opening cash as on 01-04-2016 and closing cash of 08.11.2016. Keeping all the facts of the case Explanation given to you records produced for verification before Ld. A.O. above referred assessment order dated 24-12-2019 passed by ld. A.O Ward No. - 5, Yamuna Nagar is not erroneous and no loss to the interest of revenue, should not be cancelled Under Sec 263 of the income Tax Act, 1961. I hope th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... odes of bank as well as cash. 78-79 80-85 86-111 5 Copy of the reply submitted during the course of assessment proceedings depicting the following details: i) Details of month-wise cash sales, cash received from debtors from AY's 2015-16 to 2017-18 giving justification of availability of cash in hand. ii)Copy of the consolidated stock summary for the AY 201718 wherein, stock details have been presented in quantitative as well as absolute terms. 112-113 114 115-116 6 Copy of the reply submitted during the assessment proceedings along with the copy of the confirmation from the Punjab National Bank with respect to the cash deposited in the bank account during the AY 2017-18 in specified bank currency. 117-119 Copy of the reply submitted during the assessment proceedings wherein, the following details are submitted. 120 7 i) Month wise cash flow from 01.04.2015 to 08.11.2015 depicting the opening cash balance, cash sales during the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llied. 149A-149B 14 Relevant extract of the cash book of M/s. Haryana Khad Store, Ambala for the date 17.05.2016 depicting cash balance of Rs. 5,91,445/- and for the date 18.05.2016 depicting cash balance of Rs. 3,10,945/- , as against the alleged balance of Rs. 1,91,445/-on 18.05.2016 mentioned in para 5.2 at page no. 9 of the Show Cause Notice issued u/s 263 of the Act. 150-152 15 Copy of Judgment of Hon'ble Chandigarh Bench in the case of M/s Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP in ITA No. 311/CHD /2021 dated 25.03.2022 153-222 CERTIFICATE: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS AS MENTIONED IN SERIAL NO. 1 TO 15 ARE AS PER THE DEPARTMENT RECORDS. Sd/- Authorized Signatory 3.13. Accordingly, it was submitted that whatever has been mentioned in the Show Cause Notice has been on the basis of the replies made by the assessee before the AO. Thus, it was submitted no fact has remained ignored by the AO has been brought on record to show how the order is erroneous or prejudicial. It was submitted that the PCIT reproduces from the record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and does not upset any material fact. It was his submission that the purchaser possibly is conscious that payments beyond Rs.2000/- in cash cannot be made and has for whatever reasons ensured that he has complied with the legal provisions. It was argued that as far as the assessee is concerned, where is the bar u/s 40A(3) to collect the payment in cash of even amounts more than Rs. 20,000/-. The bar admittedly operates for the payee only and who is the assessee to question the recovery/receipt of sale made. The transactions, it was submitted, are fully supported by the books of account. Detailed examination of the major purchasers from whom the assessee purchased has been done by the AO. The assessee has made available their ledger accounts. It was submitted that over the years, the manner of business of the assessee continues to remain the same. This is the same modus-operandi of the assessee over the years in the last few years. The inferences and conjectures that the AO possibly blindly accepted the replies were strongly objected to. Referring to the Paper Book again, it was submitted that the AO has not been satisfied with the reply given by the assessee and has required the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to in the Show Cause Notice as an attempt to dramatize the issue, it was submitted, was not expected from the authorities such as the ld. PCIT. 3.15 Having addressed the Show Cause Notice and the manner in which aspersions and allegations based on conjectures and surmises are said to be made out in the Show Cause Notice. Attention had been invited to the reply of the assessee dated 15.03.2022, copy of which is available at page 145 to 149. The re-conciliation questioned by the Assessing Officer, it was submitted was made and explained and was shown as tallied based on Paper Book pages 149A and 149B. Inviting attention to Paper Book page 150 to 152, the specific allegations made out by the ld. PCIT at page 9 of her order vide paras 5.2 and 5.3 onwards, it was submitted, was fully explained from the extract of the Cash Book of M/s Haryana Khad Store, Ambala for the date 17.05.2016 and for the date 18.05.2016 as against the alleged balances mentioned in para 5.2 by the ld. PCIT, attention was invited to page 146 and 147. Carrying the Bench through the said reply, it was submitted that each and every allegation of the ld. PCIT stood fully addressed. For ready reference, this rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the year. The Ld. PCIT from the copies of accounts submitted of the various parties, has noted that the receipt issued against cash collection are not in 'serial order' as per para 6 of the order of Ld. PCIT and then in para 7, where after considering the reply of the assessee, that there are different salesmen, who go out for collection of cash on different routes as they have been given the receipt books and then there is collection of cash at the office and separate receipts are issued and without considering that, it has been stated by the Ld. PCIT that there are glaring anomalies in respect of entries of cash receipts. The finding of the PCIT is totally misleading, in the sense that, she has failed to appreciate that on a particular day, there may be, salesman having gone to a place for collection of receipts and whereas, some other party or representative of some party on the same day, may have come to the office of the assessee, for making the payment and, thus, there has to be difference in the numbers of receipts, one having been issued by salesman and other from the office of the assessee or by other Salesmen at some othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l has been sold by one proprietorship concern to another proprietorship concern and thus, has stated in para 10 that alleged manipulation is there. The Ld. PCIT has mentioned wrong facts, because, there is one independent partnership concern, in the name of M/s Haryana Khad Store, Yamuna Nagar and there are two proprietorship concerns of the assessee namely, 'Haryana Khad Store, Ambala' and the other is 'Khurana Trading Co.', Yamuna Nagar. The Ld. PCIT has passed the order u/s 263 by assuming that the Haryana Khad Store is a Proprietorship concern of the assessee, which is clearly incorrect and wrong conclusion have been drawn on the basis of wrong facts and, thus mentioning of a colourful device by Ld. PCIT is totally void abi-nitio e). In para 10, the PCIT has mentioned that why the assessee has huge cash in hand as on 08.11.2016 and the Assessing Officer failed to examine the previous history in respect of cash deposits by the assessee in the bank account and then in para 10.2 has only mentioned that the Assessing Officer has failed to make the inquiry that why such a huge cash in han ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Daulat Ram Rawatmall as reported in 87 ITR 349. The deposit of cash is as per regular books of accounts. Further, there is substantial cash in hand in June, July, August from 26 lacs to 60 lacs, when no demonetization was there and hence this is merely on allegation. Copies of accounts of the parties from whom,purchases made were filed. g). In para 14, the PCIT has mentioned about certain observation on account of stock register and pointed out certain discrepancies and then has reproduced the reply of the assessee in para 14.1 that there is clerical mistake, which were explained during the course of assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer was satisfied therein and then has mentioned in para 14.2 that this explanation is vague and it was required to be verified and also purchases are not correctly recorded in books and has further stated at page 27 that sales are inflated. It is stated that it was replied to the PCIT at page 148 in para 16, that there was some clerical mistake and for which, the reconciliation was explained as per page 149A and 149B and, in fact, certain figures of the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of bonus payable has been submitted at page 128 of the Paper Book, showing that there is no mismatch and it is wrong to state that no query was raised. 3.17 Based on these facts, following submissions have been placed before us for our consideration : 7. From the above discussion, it is very clear that each and every thing has been looked into by the Assessing Officer concerned and number of queries had been raised with regard to deposit of cash during demonetization period and from the queries and various replies, it is quite evident that availability of cash in hand, as per earlier year and in the year under consideration, have been looked into, as well quantitative details and it has also been noticed that there is substantial cash available as per books of accounts and even there have been substantial 'cash in hand' during the period June 2016, July, August, September 2016, though, the demonetization came on 8th of November 2016. The quantitative details of stock have been perused by the Assessing Officer and we rely on the judgment of Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in the case of Sh. Surinder Pal Singh as reported in 94 ITR (Trib) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the course of hearing and following the judgments of various Courts from page 67 onwards, the order of Ld. PCIT u/s 263 has been cancelled. 12. Reliance by the Ld. PCIT on certain case laws, starting from page 29 is on different facts where, no enquiries had been raised or they were not examined and, thus, they are not applicable, but once the requisite enquiries and application of mind is there, no jurisdiction can be assumed u/s 263. 13. Even on merits, the reliance is being placed on the judgment of 'Chandigarh Bench' in the case of M/s Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP in ITA No. 311 /Chd/2021, which copy has been placed at pages 153 to 222 and, where the same issue of demonetization was there and in a detailed order, after considering the submissions before the Authorities below and before the Hon'ble Bench and by relying upon on various judgments, the finding has been recorded from page 205, and in para 10, wherein, it has been held that at page 206, in para 10.2, that when the opening and closing stock has not been doubted, no case of inflated purchases or suppressed sales have been noticed , then cash sales have been credited in the books of accounts and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee has no control over the AO and cannot persuade him how to draft the assessment order and whether it was a case of due application of mind or not is to be ascertained from the questionnaire and the replies submitted by the assessee. Specific attention was also invited to the decision dated 06.05.2022 in the case of Surinder Kaur Vs PCIT ITA No.86/CHD/2021 (Paper Book Page Nos. 61 to 70 and decision dated 31.08.2015 in the case of Shri Narain Singla V PCIT, Ludhiana others ITA No.427/CHD/2015 others (Paper Book Page Nos. 46 to 60 to argue that lack of application of mind cannot be conjectured and has to be shown on the basis of facts and evidences. The order on similar facts has been held to passed after due application of mind and. Reliance was placed upon CIT Vs. Anil Kumar 335 ITR 83 (Del) and Advertising Co. Ltd. 341 ITR 180. It was his prayer that the order may be quashed. 4. The ld. CIT-Dr Mr. Vivek Nangia appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that in the facts of the present case, the ld. PCIT has passed a fully exhaustive and well considered order and thus, he need not travel beyond the facts recorded in the order itself. It was submitted that all points ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en kept at less than Rs.20,000/- or exactly Rs. 20,000/- and no verification was carried out by the AO. 4.4 Inviting attention to para 10.1 it was his submission that the ld. PCIT has noticed unprecedented cash deposits. In para 10.2, it was submitted, that AO paid no attention to this abnormal cash in hand. In para 10.3, it was highlighted the ld. PCIT has given the finding that in view of the facts that the deposit in the bank already stood made and the assessee, hence, was not in a position to reverse these entries. Accordingly, a bogus cash in hand has been fabricated. Inviting attention to para 10.5 of the impugned order, the ld. PCIT has completed that cash in hand has consistently been built by the assessee after 04.06.2016 and has held it to be a case of a brazen manipulation . Referring again to the order, it was submitted that in para 10.6 a cash in hand deposited in the banks was created by the assessee in the post demonetization period and in para 11, the fact that the AO has failed to notice these facts is highlighted by the PCIT. Attention was invited to para 13 of the impugned order again which highlights that the AO failed to carry out any enquiry on the expens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s shown by the assessee for the first time. The assessing officer, however, did not raise any query in this regard to ascertain the amount and sources of investment made by the assessee in the construction of the said godown, and the genuineness of the income claim. In response to the query in this regard in the notice u/s 263(1), the assessee has submitted that income from Godown rent amounting to Rs. 95,250/- was duly reflected in the profit loss account. The assessee has further submitted that rent of Rs. 95250/- was received from RCF Ltd. as Godown rent which was not owned by him, but taken on annual rent of Rs. 72000/- duly reflected in the rent paid account. Hence there was no question of source of investment on the construction of Godown. However, no such information is found available on the relevant assessment record. The assessee has failed to furnish even now the copies of Rent agreements either for the rent paid by him, or for the rent received. The assessee has also not divulged any details about the owner of the property under question. It is not ascertainable whether at all he was authorized to sub-let the given godown, and that indeed the properly did not belong t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, without repeating them, he would rely upon the submissions on record. 5.1 Addressing the findings given in the impugned order, it was submitted that these also point-wise have been replied to and have been included by way of a detailed chart in para 6 of his synopsis filed wherein the specific point-wise reply is tabulated in pages 5 to 12. Thus, he would heavily rely upon those and not repeat himself except for saying these have not been countered with by the Revenue. 5.2 The objection of the ld. CIT-DR that the AO has not got verified from the purchasers and the assessee's submissions that these have been verified by the AO are incorrect on facts and have been so held by the ld. PCIT. Responding to this, it was his submission that it was based on the assessee's version and in case there is no documentary evidence of those with the ld. PCIT, he concedes the issue as the submission is not supported by documented evidences on record cannot be rebutted by him. 5.3 It was re-iterated that all these suspicions and conjectures do not take away the material fact that historically the assessee in this peculiar line of business has been depositing cash consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has successfully demonstrated this past practice by providing comparative figures year-wise and month-wise in the earlier years and the year under consideration. These, we find are not faulted with or upset. The mis-match pointed out stands explained and addressed. 6.2 A perusal of the assessment order shows that information u/s 133(6) had been called forth from the Punjab National Bank, Yamuna Nagar Branch which was found to be supported by the Bank Account statements and information/documents called forth vide questionnaires. Perusal of the assessment order shows that the hearings took place before the AO on almost 9 specific dates i.e. 28.09.2018, 29/07/2019, 14/08/2019, 04/09/2019, 17/09/2019, 18/10/2019, 26/11/2019, 03/12/2019, 16/12/2019. It is a matter of fact that the questions raised and the replies received from the assessee were on the on-line ITBA Portal. The introduction of this Portal, we find has brought out a greater transparency to the functioning of the authorities as the occasion to what queries were raised and what replies were received is no longer left to the mercies of trying to locate relevant records and is readily available on the ITBA Portal itself en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on on record remains that he is 74 years old person (at the relevant point of time) living alongwith his family, having vegetables and cereals available from his own agricultural activity and household drawings of Rs. 2,40,000/- in the circumstances was argued to be sufficient, has not been rebutted on any ground. Specific para 17 and 17.1 of the impugned order shows the arbitrary attempts to set aside the assessment order. The so called mis-match addressed in para 16, we find stands addressed. 6.2.3 Similarly, the conjectures in para 14 and 15, we find stand fully addressed. Accordingly, without getting into each and every observation made, we would only refer to page 23 para 10.5 wherein the ld. PCIT states that the pattern of small cash deposits against the retention of such a huge cash in hand thus exposes the brazen manipulation of cash We find such rash observation as unfortunate scandalous attempt to arouse alarm and suspicion. This manner of writing an order can not be approved. The authorities should desist from resorting to making scandalous assertions de-hors facts. The assessee's explanation that considering the peculiar factual circumstances where during this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s fully established. Accordingly, decisions relied upon by the ld. AR, we find do not require any specific discussion. 8. While so holding, we still deem it necessary to address the decision in the case of Ashwani Marwah dated 23.02.2022 in ITA 307/CHD/2020 relied upon by the ld. CITDR. We find on going through the said decision that the conclusion arrived at therein is very fact specific and does not have any play on the facts of the present case. In the facts of the said case, the assessee took the position that the issue taken into consideration by the ld. PCIT was beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny as the selection for the specific case under CASS was only to examine sundry creditors and sales turnover mis-match The ld. PCIT amongst other issues had examined the ledger and vouchers payable and the assessment order was set aside. The Co-ordinate Bench on the other issues in regard to mis-match of figures etc. pointed out held that it was explained and there was no mis-match. However, the lack of enquiry on labour and wages payable were glaring areas highlighted by the ld. PCIT and these have been upheld by the ITAT. For readyreference, we reproduce paras 12 to 14 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee company and making an adhoc addition without specifying the basis thereof. It is not a question of kind and extent of enquiry and hence, a difference of approach and methodology of examination of a particular transaction as done by the AO and as suggested by the Id PCIT. No doubt every Assessing officer has his unique style of functioning and no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how he should conduct the enquiry in discharge of his statutory functions. However, where the factual scenario of a case prima facie indicates abnormalities and cry for looking deep into it as rightly highlighted by the Id PCIT in terms of complete lack of documentation, old oustandings, payment in cash, etc, then mere calling for the details of labour and wages payable and accepting the ledger account containing incomplete details and without calling for further information/documentation and conducting independent enquiries cannot be held as conducting proper enquiry. Therefore, on this account, we agree with the findings of the Id PCIT that proper enquiries have not been conducted by the AO and the order thus passed is clearly erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
