9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of mind by the AO on the twin issue of impugned cash deposit and purchase and sale transaction/capital gain declared by the assessee. The decisions relied upon by the assessee fully support the view canvassed by the assessee before us. In a recent decision in PCIT (Central) vs. Kanin (India) [ 2022 (5) TMI 1414 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] that if the Ld. PCIT did not point out what enquiries or verification should have been made but had not been made by the Ld. AO, the order passed by the Ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act is not sustainable. As regards expenses claimed under the head bank charges and interest and loan from three parties, the assessee submitted before the Ld. PCIT that detailed list of expenses was filed during reassessment proceedings which were verified by the Ld. AO from the ledger account and thereafter he allowed them. From certain other expenses, the Ld. AO disallowed 20% being unverifiable for the purposes of business. It was further submitted that list of unsecured loan was filed before the Ld. AO and confirmation of the parties were also filed in response to the query made by the Ld. AO. On the face of these facts on record, we are unable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dences were available on the record at the time of assessment proceedings. 3. That having regard to facts circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr.CIT has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order u/s 263 and that too without providing the opportunity of being heard and in violation of principles of natural justice and without appreciating/considering the various replies, submissions and evidences filed by the assessee. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. Pr.CIT in passing the impugned order u/s 263 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and is in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 which is bad in law inter alia for this reason that the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3)/147 dated 28.12.2017 which is sought to be revised u/s 263 itself was invalid inter alia on various grounds as mentioned below and thus proceedings initiated u/s 263 against the invalid reassessment order is clearly bad in law. a) That assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 is itself is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e explained that he purchased a property of Rs. 70,00,000/- on 23.05.2009 having share in it. He jointly sold part of above property for Rs. 35,00,000/- on 31.07.2009. It was further explained that the assessee sold another property of Rs. 50,00,000/- on 21.08.2009 having share in it and earned capital gain of half of Rs. 50,220/- i.e. Rs. 25,110/- which he declared in his return. 5. The assessee also explained that the property sold on 21.08.2009 of Rs. 50,00,000/- is doubly reported. Therefore, AIR information regarding sale of property of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- is incorrect. It should be Rs. 50,00,000/- Rs. 35,00,000/- amounting in all to Rs. 85,00,000/-. 6. The explanation offered by the assessee was acceptable to the Ld. AO on both the issue of cash deposit and property transaction. 7. The Ld. AO, therefore completed the assessment on 28.12.2017 under section 143(3)/147 on total income of Rs. 4,52,900/- adding to the income returned at Rs. 3,95,126/-, disallowance of Rs. 1050/- out of claim of donation under section 80G and disallowance of Rs. 56,727/- being 20% out of expenses of Rs. 2,83,636/-. 8. The Ld. PCIT set aside the assessment vide his order dated 18.3.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee filed the confirmations of the concerned persons before the Ld. A.O. Hence proper enquiry was made by the AO during the assessment proceedings on this point and considering the evidences passed the order h) That all the relevant evidences were fled in respect of the above point during the assessment proceeding and after considering them the assessment order is passed by the Ld AO and is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue It is therefore requested to kindly consider the documents and evidences filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings and also prayed not to set aside or cancel the assessment order passed by the A.O. It is further prayed that in case of any other evidence or clarification on any point is required, please give some more time to the assessee for filing the same before your honour as due to lock down the assessee is unable to present or produce the relevant evidences, if required by your honour. 10. The explanation given by the assessee was not acceptable to the Ld. PCIT who for the reasons recorded by him in para 4 of his order held that the assessment order is erroneous and also prejudicial to the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale of immovable property of Rs. 1,35,00,000/-. This is evident from the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO (copy of which is at page 20 of the Paper Book). During the course of the assessment proceedings in the questionnaire dated 16.08.2017 (copy at page 22-23 of Paper Book) specific query No. 17 to explain cash deposit of Rs. 22,62,136/- and specific query No. 24 to furnish computation of capital gain arising from sale of property and to explain source of investment towards purchase of property was made. The assessee filed reply which appears at pages 26-28 and 77-78 of the Paper Book. The Ld. AO recorded a finding that cash deposit of Rs. 22,62,136/- in saving bank account has been verified and found in order after examining the books of account of the assesee and reconciliation of cash deposit with reference to cash book and statement of account obtained from the bank by issue of notice under section 133(6) of the Act. We also observe from page 79 of Paper Book that the Ld. AO accepted the calculation of short-term capital gain declared by the assessee after due verification. We are, therefore, of the view that it is not a case of no enquiry. Rather there is lot of evidence on re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
