9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anomalies pointed out by the Ld. Pr.CIT. Thus we set aside the order of the Ld. Pr.CIT passed u/s 263 - Grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. - I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 - - - Dated:- 24-3-2023 - Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon ble President And Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member For the Assessee : S/Shri K. Sampath And V. Raja Kumar, Adv. For the Revenue : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi dated 09.03.2022 passed u/s 263 of the Act for the AY 2017-18. 2. Assessee challenged the order of the Ld. Pr.CIT in holding that the assessment order passed by the ACIT, Circle 51(1), Delhi is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and directing the AO to make a fresh assessment denovo. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee a partnership firm filed its return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 29.10.2017 declaring income of Rs. 67,49,420/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and final assessment was made u/s 143(3) of the Act on 12.12.2019 accepting the income returned. Subsequently, notice date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act the Assessing Officer issued notice dated 24.10.2019 u/s 142(1) of the Act along with annexure which are specified forms to verify the cash deposits during demonetization period i.e. (9th November to 30th December, 2016) and the assessee has furnished complete details as called for by the AO in the specific formats on 16.11.2019 which are placed at pages 32 to 37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the assessee has also furnished cash book, stock register, VAT returns and explained the source of cash sales and cash deposits into the bank account. The Ld. Counsel submits that the Assessing Officer examined all these details furnished by the assessee as called for specifically in the specified formats and passed the order u/s 143(3) and, therefore, the order cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 6. The Ld. Counsel further referring to page 178 of the Paper Book, which is the reply furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings in respect of the capital introduced by the partners, submits th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out by the Ld. Pr.CIT and not conducting necessary enquiries herself before holding that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, the Pr.CIT grossly erred in setting aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for denovo assessment which is not permissible. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kailash Jewellery House (ITA No. 613/2010 dated 09.04.2010). 9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that only in case of no enquiry revision under section 263 may be permissible and if there is an enquiry no prejudice is caused to the Revenue and revision is not permissible for inadequate enquiry. Reliance was placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. NDTV, 262 CTR 604 and CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167. 10. The Ld. Counsel further submits that when two views are possible and the Assessing Officer adopts one of the possible view with which the Pr.CIT does not agree then that order would not be an order prejudicial to the interest of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) The assessee had also not provided the details of cash deposits during the assessment proceedings; iv) The assessee had failed to provide documentary evidences to prove its contentions even during the revision proceedings; v) If cash was tantamount (sic) in the books of the assessee before the demonetization period then if could have been deposited during the relevant period or during the demonetization period; vi) The assessee had regularly deposited cash in the preceding previous years into the bank but has failed to do so in the relevant assessment year which aspect the AO has failed to examine; vii) The purchases made during the month of November 2016 did not match with the comparative of sales during the same period; viii) The AO had failed to verify the stock / inventory maintained by the assessee; and ix) The assessee has failed to provide explanation in respect of source introduced as capital and had not proved the creditworthiness of the lender. 4. It is submitted that the Pr. CIT is palpably wrong in his conclusions and that his action u/s 263 of the Act in the subject case is vicious and void ab initio. That is for the reason that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The AO was satisfied with the explanations submitted by the assessee. That was the judicial prerogative of the AO which the Pr. CIT could not legally challenge without pointing out an error therein. How that explanation which passed the AO's satisfaction was unsatisfactory at the level of the Pr. CIT is also not stated in the revision order. Being so the observation as made by the Pr. CIT is baseless and erroneous. The Pr. CIT was duty bound to bring out the error both in the explanation of the assessee and how it fetched acceptance by the AO. Failure of the Pr. CIT to bring material on record to demonstrate the error reduces the objection as raised by the Pr. CIT hollow and nugatory. (ii) The AO had indeed asked for the source of cash deposits. He had asked for the pattern of cash-in-hand which was submitted by the assessee as per pages 33 34 of the Paper Book. The assessee had placed before the AO the complete sale and purchase accounts with the stock register which all established beyond doubt the manner of accrual of cash and of its deposit into the bank account. The AO, perhaps as a measure of abundant caution had obtained and placed the entire cashbook on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the capital augmented during the year was duly explained to the AO with confirmation from the respective contributors who are relatives of the partners. Those details are part of the assessment records on pages 139, 140, 141 and 145 of the Paper Book. The AO, in the assessment, abided by the Delhi Tribunal decision where it ruled that the infusion of capital in the accounts of partners is required to be examined in the assessment of the partners. Incidentally the two partners whose capital had been augmented by their relatives were being assessed by the same AO. Also the AO found that the prima facie onus on the assessee to explain the credits in the capital accounts were in any case discharged. The Pr. CIT has apparently erred in reading and understanding the material on the records of assessment. The AO had commenced the assessment proceedings by forwarding to the assessee the CBDT circulars and instructions as under for compliance:- 1. Instruction No. 3/2017 dated 21.02.2017 issued vide F.No. 225/100/2017/ITA-ll; 2. Instruction No. 4/2017 dated 03.03.2017 issued vide F.No. 225/10//2017/IT A-ll; 3. SOP dated 15.11.2018 issued vide F.No. 225/363/2017/IT A-ll; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of Income- tax vs. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Del). This is what the courts said in the two cases:- (a) Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2003] 263 ITR 436 (P H): The Commissioner can exercise powers under subsection (1) of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only after examining the record of any proceedings under the Act. The expression record has been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include all records relating to any proceedings available at the time of examination by the Commissioner. It is not only the assessment order but the entire record which has to be examined before arriving at a conclusion as to whether the Assessing Officer had examined any issue or not ..The assessee had no control over the way the assessment order was drafted. (b) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 [Del): An assessee has no control over the way an assessment order is drafted. Generally, issues which are accepted by the Assessing Officer do not find mention in the assessment order and only such points are taken note of on which the assessee's explanations are rejected an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of Income-tax while exercising jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act and in the absence of the finding that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, exercise of jurisdiction under the said section is not sustainable. In most cases of alleged inadequate investigation, it will be difficult to hold that the order of the Assessing Officer, who had conducted enquiries and had acted as an investigator, is erroneous, without the Commissioner of Income-tax conducting verification / inquiry. The order of the Assessing officer may be or may not be wrong. The Commissioner of Income-tax cannot direct reconsideration on this ground but only when the order is erroneous. An order of remit cannot be passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax to ask the Assessing Officer to decide whether the order was erroneous. This is not permissible. An order is not erroneous, unless the Commissioner of Income-tax hold and records reasons why it is erroneous. An order will not become erroneous because on remit, the Assessing Officer may decide that the order is erroneous. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax must after recording reasons hold that the order is err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y ignored the submissions of the assessee before passing the order u/s 263 and the case laws relied on by the Ld. DR are distinguishable on facts. 15. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the case laws relied on. We observe that in the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) dated 24.10.2019 along with annexure, which is placed at page no. 21 to 28 of the Paper Book calling for various details in respect of month wise cash sales, month wise cash deposits, month wise details of sales and purchases, cash book, copies of VAT/Service Tax returns, the details of commission paid in specific formats prescribed by the CBDT for verification of cash deposits during demonetization period. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed the following information before the Assessing Officer on 16.11.2019 in the course of assessment proceedings: Sl.No. Particulars 1. Copy of reply dated 16.11.2019 along with annexures. 2. Copy of Cash Book for the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Book explaining the sources of cash deposits made into the bank account. The assessee also explained various anomalies pointed out by the Ld.Pr.CIT in its reply particularly the increase in cash sales during the period from 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 and compared with that of the same period corresponding to the previous year viz-a-viz the credit sales during that period. In the reply the assessee stated that the Assessing Officer made every possible query regarding increase in cash sales and the assessee had fully replied every query and on satisfaction regarding the increase in cash sales the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any discrepancy therein in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 17. We observe that the assessee submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice issued by the Ld. Pr.CIT explaining the sources for cash deposits and sources for introducing capital by the partners as under: - 1. Cash deposited during demonization:- It is respectfully submitted that the assessee was a Partnership firm of Sh. Rahul Verma and Sh. Anshuman Verma during the year under consideration. The assesse firm was engaged in the business of Gold, Silver D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... month of December 2016. Nevertheless it has been brought to your knowledge that as compare to the previous year December 2015 sales the credit sales was increased from RsA81 crores to Rs.5.75 crores in December 2016 i.e. by Rs.94 lacs whereas cash sales was reduced from Rs.5.50 lacs to Rs,812Q only in the respective month due to the reason mentioned above. Observation No.-2 : The AO has neither asked for the justification nor the assessed has filed any justification regarding the abnormal increase in cash sales. The AO had failed to verify the source of cash deposits The above facts shows that the AO has failed to make any meaningful logically enquiry in this case. As such this assessment order is erroneous/ in so far it is prejudicial to revenue A note on justification regarding abnormal increase in sales In this connection it is reiterated that during the demonetization period the assessee firm had deposited Rs.65,92,000 in specified currency in the bank. The source of these Rs.65,92,000 was providing to the assessing officer in the form of table regarding month wise cash sales and cash deposited for the period from 01=04-2016 to 31-03-2017 alon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... times. It was just because of the forthcoming wedding season in the month of Novermber-2016 as stated above. (Refer table 6(viii) for verification) The sales trend in the jewellery business cannot be similar if we compare any month of this year with the similar month of previous year. Since the turnover of every month effect by many factors like variation in the date of festival seasons, wedding seasons, variation in gold rate price etc. hence strict comparison cannot be made. Since in the year under consideration the wedding season was going to be start from 11.11.2016 hence during the period of 8 days from 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 the cash sales was of Rs 32,59,351 as against NIL and credit sales was of Rs 3.35 crores as against 49 lacs since the similar wedding season was not upcoming in the month of November 2015. Regarding the abnormai increase in cash sales the AO made necessary query to satisfy herself in this regard, as we!! the Assessee filed all the details sought by her vide her notice dated 24-10-2019 reply of the same was filed on 16-11-2019 she had asked through Point no.-6 the following: Further submitted that the worthy CBDT vide their instruction num ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... July 2016 20,13,282 October 2016 11,27,362 January 2017 11,56,031 All these facts were brought on record during assessment through point No.-6(x) for the consideration and perusal of the AO. # Similarly it was not the first time that the assessee had deposited cash in the bank, in the year itself, the assessee had deposited in the followings months too : MONTH CASH DEP. April 2016 1,00,000 August 2016 5,00,000 September 2016 16,50,000 TOTAL 22,50,000 All these facts were brought on record during assessment through point No.-6(x) for the consideration and perusal of the AO. - Since the Ld.AO made every possible query regarding increase In cash sales ''and the assessee had fully replied of .her every query, it can be very well understand that she was fully satisfied regarding the increase in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all stock items such as Gold bar, alloy and Mixing , Gold and diamond jewellery etc. were also submitted before AO for her verification. In this regard it is submitted that the assessee firm is maintaining day wise stock register in respect of ail the stock items as stated above. Please appreciate that there was enough stock to effect the cash sales. The alleged cash sales were made out of the stock of materials held by assessee firm and were duly recorded in the stock register. Similarly., ail the purchases, sales stock are interlink and inseparable. Every purchase had increased the stock and every sale had decreased the stock. It is also to be notes here that during the 8 days of November i.e. from 1st November to 8th November there is a cash and credit sales of Rs.3.87 Crores but to make the sales during the said period the assessee firm had not made any purchases. The entire sales in these 8 days were made out of the stock held by the assessee firm. The assessee firm was having enough stock of jewellery not only at the time of making alleged cash sales, rather throughout the year. For instance at the- beginning of the year it was having stock worth of Rs.16.40 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t a) In the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 [SC], the Hon ble Apex Court decided the matter in favour of assessee of the ground that it was clear on the record that the assessee maintained the books of accounts according to the mercantile system and there was sufficient cash balance in its cash books and the books of account of the assessee were not challenged by the Assessing Officer. If the entries in the books of accounts are genuine and the balance in cash is matching with the books, it can be said that the assessee has explained the nature and source of such deposit. b) Kailash Jewellery House vs, CIT Delhi as held by Hon ble High Court of Delhi 1TA613/2010 4 .. The Tribunal also observed that it is not in dispute that the sum of Rs.24,58,400 was credited in the saie account and had been duly included in the profit disclosed by the assessee in its return. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal observed that the cash sales could not be treated as undisclosed income and no addition could be made once again in respect of the same. (copy of which is enclosed herewith for your ready reference ) c) Pramod Kesharichand S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In conclusion it can be very well conclude i) that the AO had made proper enquiry which should have been made at her level best and as per her wisdom which satisfied the condition prescribed In clause(a) of the explanation 2 section 283 (as inserted from 01-06-2015). ii) Similarly, the order has been made in accordance with the instructions dated 09- 08-2019 (supra) issued by CBDT the apex body and fully satisfied the condition laid down in clause (d) to the explanation to section 263 (as inserted from 01-04- 2015) Without prejudice to the above your attention is also drawn on the following decisions pronounced by Hon ble Courts for your consideration: I ] It was settled by honorable Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)J wherein it was held that if the A.O. adopts one of the possible courses available in the scheme of the I.T. Act which results in any loss of revenue or when two view's are possible and the A.O. adopts one of them with which the C.I.T. does not agree, then it would not be an order prejudicial to the interest of revenue for invoking tine jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Accordingly the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vii) 53 Taxman 135 (Guj) Pr. CIT v. Vaishnodevi Refoils Solvex viii) 141 UR 706 (All) CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance ix) 218 ITR 508 (All) India Rice Mills v. CIT x) 221 ITR 239 (All) Surendra Mahan Seth v. CIT xi) 263 CTR 612 (All) Zafa Ahmad and Co. v. CIT xii) 268 ITR 381 (Pat) CIT v. Md. Perwez Ahmad and Others xiii) 282 CTR 200 (Pat) CIT v. Anurag Rice Mills xiv) 268 ITR 381 (Pat) CIT v. Md. Parwez Ahmad xv) 400 ITR 120 (Jhar.) Prayag Tendu Leaves Processing Co. v. CIT xvi) 291 ITR 232 (Mad.) CIT v. Taj Borewells xvii) ITA No. 2912/D/2014 dated 20.12.2017 Shri Gems v. ITO xviii) ITA No. 3734/D/2018 dated 29.3.2019 AMS Roadlines vs. DCIT It is further submitted that during the assessment the date wise introduction of capital by the partners was submitted on 05-12=2019 along with the source of their capital introduction with the documentary evidence. It has been further submitted that in the case of funds received from mother Smt. Vijay Laxmi Verma, her confirmation with PAN and copy of her saving bank account duly highlighted the concerned entries were provided to the Ld. AO. It is trite law and has also been held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the AO. In this connection it is submitted that as per the section 68 the source to source is not mandatory in the case of partnership firm. It is in the case of company in which public is not substantially interested is required to explain the source of source as per the clause(a) of the first proviso. Section 68 is reproduced here: Section - 68 Cash Credit Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year and assessee offer no-explanation above the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the AO, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. Provided that where the assessee is a company, (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested) and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capita!, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee-company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless : (a) the person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lender. 19. On perusal of the order of the Ld. Pr.CIT, we observed that the Ld. Pr.CIT has not considered the entire reply of the assessee and only a part reply was extracted in her order. The Pr.CIT has not examined the contentions raised by the assessee in its detailed reply giving various reasons for increase in cash sales viz-a-viz credit sales, purchases, stocks, etc. for source of cash deposits into bank account. Ld. Pr.CIT also completely ignored the submissions of the assessee in respect of explanation and the evidences furnished by the assessee in respect of capital introduced by the partners into the partnership firm. We observed that in course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was called upon to explain and furnish the information in respect of source of cash deposit in a specified format prescribed by the CBDT for examining the cash deposits and considering the submissions and explanations the assessment was completed even though the Assessing Officer did not record his satisfaction in the assessment order. On reading of the assessment order, the replies/information furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, it cannot be said th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax to ask the Assessing Officer to decide whether the order was erroneous. This is not permissible. An order is not erroneous, unless the Commissioner of Income-tax hold and records reasons why it is erroneous. An order will not become erroneous because on remit, the Assessing Officer may decide that the order is erroneous. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax must after recording reasons hold that the order is erroneous. The jurisdictional precondition stipulated is that the Commissioner of Income-tax must come to the conclusion that the order is erroneous and is unsustainable in law. 21. In the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., (332 ITR 167) the Hon ble Delhi High Court held that if there was any enquiry even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders u/s 263 of the Act merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. It was held that it is only in cases of lack of enquiry that such a course of action would be opened. While holding so the Hon ble High Court observed as under: - We have considered the rival submissions of the Counsel on the other side and have gone through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nner could have come to such a conclusion, the very initiation of proceedings by him will be illegal and without jurisdiction. The Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to starting fishing and roving enquiries in matters or orders which are already concluded. Such action will be against the well-accepted policy of law that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi- judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately. This section does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income Tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decision is held to be erroneous. Cases may be visualized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mined and verified to compute the taxable income. If the Assessing Officer fails to conduct the said investigation, he commits an error and the word erroneous includes failure to make the enquiry. In such cases, the order becomes erroneous because enquiry or verification has not been made and not because a wrong order has been passed on merits. 13. Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Additional Commission of Income-Tax, Delhi-I Ors.,(1975) 99 ITR 375, has observed as under:- The reason is obvious. The position and function of the Income-tax Officer is very different from that of a civil court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be accepted by a civil court in the absence of any rebuttal. The civil court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the basis of the pleading and evidence which comes before it. The Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further inquiry. It is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 263 of the Income-tax Act. As noted above, the submission of learned counsel for the Revenue was that while passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer did not consider this aspect specifically whether the expenditure in question was revenue or capital expenditure. This argument predicates on the assessment order, which apparently does not give any reasons while allowing the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, that by itself would not be indicative of the fact that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind on the issue. There are judgments galore laying down the principle that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is not required to give detailed reason in respect of each and every item of deduction, etc. Therefore, one has to see from the record as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry . If there was any inquiry, even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised where the Income-tax Officer while making an assessment examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and determines the income either by accepting the accounts or by making some estimate himself. The Commissioner, on perusal of the records, may be of the opinion that the estimate made by the officer concerned was on the lower side and left to the Commissioner he would have estimated the income at a figure higher than the one determined by the Income-tax Officer. That would not vest the Commissioner with power to re-examine the accounts and determine the income himself at a higher figure. It is because the Income-tax Officer has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in him in accordance with law and arrived at a conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be formed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion . . . There must be some prima facie material on record to show that tax which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation a lesser tax than what was just has been imposed . . . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24. The principle laid down by the above decisions squarely applies to the facts of the assessee s case. The Ld. Pr.CIT in order to hold the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue should make enquiries himself pointing out the error or omission on the part of the Assessing Officer in conducting the enquiries. On a reading of the order of the Ld. Pr.CIT it is observed that no such exercise has been done by the Ld. Pr.CIT before concluding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The assessee has furnished explanations along with all evidences before the Ld. Pr.CIT and the Ld. Pr.CIT failed to point out the deficiencies in conducting the enquiries by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Pr.CIT in the order observes that the assessee has failed to prove the source of cash deposits of Rs.65,92,000/- in its bank account during the period of demonetization, neither the Assessing Officer had asked for the source of cash deposits during the assessment proceedings nor had assessee provided any details ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer specifically called for the details in the sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
