9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted with supporting evidences and has applied his mind though not to the satisfaction of the PCIT. The submission of assessee that the 263 proceedings were initiated on the basis of audit objection could not be controverted by DR. Therefore considering the smallness of the amount involved and the assessee being a very small assessee who is not having any taxable income, the provisions of section 263 in our opinion, are not warranted and are quashed. Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri R. K. Panda, Vice President And Ms Astha Chandra, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Ms Vaishnavi Badwe For the Department : Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR ORDER PER R. K. PANDA, VP : The above 3 appeals filed by the respective assessees are directed against the separate orders dated 22.02.2024 23.02.2024 of the Ld. PCIT (Central), Pune, passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) relating to assessment year 2017-18. Since identical grounds have been raised in all these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. First, we take up ITA No.817/PUN/2024 as the lead case. Facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30.03.2022 filed the following details: For the remaining amount of Rs. 50,91,200/- the assessee has stated that Cash Gift of Rs. 40.00 lakhs was received from in-laws of Prem Gaikwad and Rs. 17,54,003/- received from relatives and friends on the occasion of marriage ceremony of Prem Gaikwad. In support, she has enclosed copy of Gift deed dt. 23.09.2016 by in-laws of Prem Gaikwad, saving account statement and loan account statement. Further, the assessee submitted list of relatives and friends. The assessee claimed receipt of cash gifts of Rs. 17,54,003/- from relatives and friends on occasion of marriage of Prem Gaikwad, The details are as under: Sr. No. Name Gift Amount (Rs.) 1 K V Desai 151000 2 Shankar Kalbhor 151000 3 Yashwant Gaikwad 200000 4 Laxman Magar 350001 5 Shubham Garg 51001 6 Sandip Daddikar 51001 7 Ravindra Gaikwad 200000 8 Kalyan Kate 150000 9 Rajesh Shinde 150000 10 Dnuaneshwar Gaikwad 100000 11 Vishwajit Gaikwad 200000 Total 17,54,003 In support, the assessee has submitted affidavits/ITR/7'12 extracts of persons from Sr.No.1 to 5, totaling to Rs. 9,03,002/-. Hence the assessee could explain the source of cash deposits of Rs. 49,03,002/-, out of remaining amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e initiated and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 19.02.2022 declaring income at Rs. 180/- only. The scrutiny assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 31.03.2022 by accepting returned income. 03. On perusal of the assessment records it is seen that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 8,30,500/- in his bank account during the year under consideration. It has been claimed by the assessee that out of the same, Rs. 4,59,500/- was offered under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Deposit Scheme, 2016 (PMGKY) and has submitted the challan of deposit. For the balance amount of Rs. 3,71,000/-, it had been claimed that the said amount had been received from the in-laws of his brother i.e. Shri Prem Ditip Gaikwad. Since the in-laws of Shri Prem Gaikwad are not relatives as per Section 56 of the Act, the balance amount of cash deposit being Rs. 3,71,000/- was required to be added to the total income of the assessee u/s 56(2) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) has not added the same to the total income of the assessee. 04. Thus, the gift claimed to be deposited in the account of the assessee (broth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt proceedings, therefore, the revisional proceedings u/s 263 of the Act should be dropped. The assessee also relied on various case laws. However, the PCIT was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee. He noted that the issue of applicability of provisions of section 56(2) of the Act was not at all examined / verified / enquired by the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee had not submitted the details regarding the source of cash deposited in his case. From the various details furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, he noted that nowhere it was mentioned as to how much gift was received by the assessee from the in-laws of his brother Prem Gaikwad. He noted that the assessee before him made a fresh claim that only Rs. 50,000/- was gifted to him by his brother s in-laws on the occasion of his brother s marriage and the amount of Rs. 3 lacs deposited was out of cash gifts received by his brother which was subsequently given to him. The assessee submitted a fresh affidavit from his brother regarding the same. He, therefore, held that the assessee had not submitted these details before the Assessing Officer during the course of assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various amounts to the assessee and Ms. Madhuri Dilip Gaikwad. She submitted that the cash gift given by Prem Gaikwad to Vaibhav Gaikwad and Madhuri Dilip Gaikwad was explained before the PCIT by filing a fresh affidavit which he should have considered, considering the smallness of the amount. Since the Assessing Officer in the instant case has examined the issue and has taken a possible view and it is not a case of lack of enquiry, therefore, the PCIT is not justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. She submitted that the revision proceedings were initiated on account of audit objection which is beyond the jurisdiction of PCIT. Relying on various decisions, she submitted that the 263 proceedings initiated by Ld. PCIT are not in accordance with law. 10. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly supported the order of the PCIT. He submitted that when the assessee has received more than Rs. 50,000/- from the in-laws of Prem Gaikwad who is not a related party, the provisions of section 56(2) of the Act should have been invoked by the Assessing Officer which he failed to do and therefore, the PCIT was fully justified in invoking the revisionary powers conferred upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f section 56(2) of the Act should have been invoked, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act are warranted in the instant case. In the instant case, we find the Assessing Officer had examined the source of cash deposits of all the three family members together which were submitted with supporting evidences and has applied his mind though not to the satisfaction of the PCIT. Further, the submission of Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the 263 proceedings were initiated on the basis of audit objection could not be controverted by the Ld. DR. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the smallness of the amount involved and the assessee being a very small assessee who is not having any taxable income, the provisions of section 263 of the Act in our opinion, are not warranted. We, therefore, set aside the order of the PCIT and the proceedings initiated u/s 263 of the Act are quashed. 13. Identical grounds have been raised in other two appeals. We have already decided the issue and the grounds raised in ITA No.817/PUN/2024 have been allowed. Following similar reasoning, proceedings initiated u/s 263 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
