9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an be said that assessing officer conducted adequate enquiry. The view taken by the A.O. was one of the possible views and the assessment order passed by him could not be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. C.I.T. on the same set of facts and evidences on record was of the opinion that the A.O. should have rejected the regrouping of debit and credit entries as explained above and he should have taken the stand which the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. hinted in the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act. This is not permissible under law. Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for a total consideration of Rs. 70,00,000/-, during the year under consideration, vide Sale Deed No. JLP/5588/2017 dated 26.12.2017. It also came to notice that the payments (except one payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- made on 11.08.2017 through RTGS from Axis Bank) for the purchase of the said property, as per the details available on the Sale Deed, have been made from the Bank Account bearing No.34977252514 maintained with State Bank of India, which was not disclosed in the return of income. It was also noticed by ld PCIT that though the total consideration for the property, as per the Sale Deed has been shown at Rs. 70,00,000/- including TDS amount, however, the total amount reflected in the payment schedule mentioned in Page Nos. 7 and 8 of the Sale Deed, works out to Rs. 90,00,000/-. However, the Assessing Officer failed to take these facts into consideration and to take them to their logical conclusion while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and has passed the assessment order. In view of the above stated facts, the ld PCIT was of the view that assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act in the case of the assessee for Asstt. Year 2018-19 is erroneous in so far as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... criminal complaint for the dishonour of cheques against the assessee. The assessing officer didn't make any further inquiry as the cheques that were cleared were tallying with the bank statements filed in the course of assessment proceedings. It is to be noted that assessee has actually paid Rs. 30 lacs to the seller and Rs. 70,000/- by way of TDS out of Rs. 70 lacs. The amount actually paid is evident from the bank statement as explained herein above. 3. Your honour has raised another issue that assessee has shown the turnover of Rs. 31,35,000/- for the purpose of section 44AD whereas the credit entries appearing in bank accounts is Rs. 1,20,44,870/- including cash deposit of Rs. 46,32,750/-. In this connection, it is submitted that whatever assessee has received as business receipts were shown as turnover. Other credit entries through cheques are from the Hanuman Purohit, Pushpak Electronics, Rajgharana Developers and Shree Arihant Developers, other parties and other credits. 4. Assessee received back the amount advanced earlier to Pushpak Electronics. Even your honour has mentioned in the show cause notice u/s. 263 that assessee received the amount from Hanuman Purohit, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith Axis Bank, Parle Point, Surat. In these accounts total credit through banking transactions are at Rs. 1,20,44,870/- and the total cash deposit during the period under consideration in the Axis Bank account is at Rs. 46,32,750/-. Therefore, ld PCIT has set aside the assessment order with direction to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with the law after taking into consideration the issues discussed here in above. 7. Aggrieved, by the order of ld PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. Shri Rasesh Shah, learned Counsel for the assessee, begins by pointing out that bank account No.34977252514 was not disclosed by the assessee in his return of income, however, the said bank account number was disclosed by the assessee during the scrutiny assessment proceedings before the assessing officer. The assessee has explained each entry of said bank account number before the assessing officer. Therefore, during the assessment stage, the assessing officer has examined the said bank account and thereafter, he has passed the assessment order, hence such assessment order should not be erroneous. The ld Counsel further stated that majority of credit entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l to the interest of Revenue. 11. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. PCIT and other material brought on record. We note that during the assessment stage, the Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, which is placed at paper book page no.10. In response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee has submitted its reply during the assessment stage, which is placed at paper book pave no.15. Therefore, we note that assessing officer has examined the issue, which was raised by the Ld. PCIT in his order under section 263 of the Act. We note that assessee has also submitted its reply before the Assessing Officer dated 28.11.2019, which is placed at paper book pave no.16, therefore, we note that the issue raised by the Ld. PCIT in his order under section 263 of the Act, has been examined by the Assessing Officer. The only query raised by the Ld. PCIT, is that Assessing Officer has not made further enquiry. We note that it is prerogative of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit entries of said bank were explained by assessee. With above said details submitted during the course of assessment and available on record, it can be seen that assessee has explained the sources of investments for the purchase of land in question before the assessing officer. In the case of the assessee, there is no denying the fact, as detailed above and acknowledged in the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 28.12.2019, that in response to notices u/s. 143(2)/142(1) and further requisitions made during the course of assessment proceeding, the A/R of the assessee appeared from time to time before the assessing officer and produced/ submitted necessary details/documents as per requisitions in relation to the issues raised by the Ld. Pr. C.I.T., which were examined by Assessing Officer. Therefore, it is the appraisal of the same records which are already with the Ld. A.O. and the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. took a different view than adopted by the A.O. on the same set of facts, which is not permissible u/s 263 of the Act. In the above circumstances, the view taken by the A.O. was one of the possible views and the assessment order passed by him could not be held to be erroneous and prejudicia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
