9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial evidence or substantial grounds to suggest that the assessment order was either erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. As a settled law that for an order to be revised u/s 263, it must be demonstrated that the assessment order suffers from a legal infirmity or factual error leading to a loss of revenue. In the present case, the AO has made a detailed inquiry into all the issues as specifically pointed out by PCIT, and the conclusions drawn by the AO are supported by evidence. Therefore, the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Consequently, the revisionary powers u/s 263 are not required to be exercised in the instant case. Appeals filed by a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als is satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, the delay is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. Facts and Reasons for Reopening the Assessments 4. A.Y. 2011-12: The assessee, a salaried employee, filed his return of income on 26.08.2011, declaring an income of Rs. 8,02,790/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) on 09.11.2011, and a demand of Rs. 790/- was raised. Subsequently, information was received from the Assessing Officer, Circle- 1(1)(1), Baroda, indicating that the assessee had purchased a flat for Rs. 14,41,000/- during the Financial Year (FY) 2010-11. The source of this payment was not evident from the income declared by the assessee, leading the AO to believe that the income chargeable to tax had esc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted the returned income without making any additions, which the PCIT considered a lapse. For A.Y. 2012-13, the PCIT set aside the reassessment order on the grounds that the AO failed to verify the sources of various cash deposits, unsecured loans, and discrepancies in the reported salary income. The PCIT concluded that the AO s failure to investigate these issues made the order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. 7. Aggrieved by the order of PCIT, the assessee filed an appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: Grounds of Appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 1. The Ld. Pr. CIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara has erred in law and in facts in passing of the order u/s. 263 setting aside the order of the Ld. A. O. passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 28.11.2018 and directing him to pass a fresh assessment order on the ground that various issues have not been examined by him. The order being bad in law and in facts deserves to be cancelled. 2. The Ld. Pr. CIT is erred in law and in facts in ignoring the fact that the Ld. A.O. had examined the various items of income, now held by him as assessable to income, though examined in the course of assessment. The order being bad in law and in facts deserves to be cancelled. 3. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw any of the grounds) of appeal hereinabove contended. On the grounds of appeal 8. The Authorised Representative (AR) for the assessee contended that the AO had duly cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee was also required to furnish the bank statements for verification along with explanation for credit entries exceeding Rs. 20,000/- He was also asked to specifically mention that there is no other bank account except those mentioned by the assessee. In the same notice the assessee was also asked to provide details of investment made in movable and immovable assets. In reply to these notices the assessee submitted the details along with the bank statements covering both the assessment years and the explanation to the credit in excess of Rs. 20,000/- covering bank accounts with ICIC Bank (A/c No. 000301046151) and Union Bank of India (A/c No. 310602010012295). To explain the source of funds a loan sanction letter from Axis Bank sanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 263, arguing that the AO's orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue due to the alleged failure to properly inquire into the credit entries in the bank accounts. However, as demonstrated in the proceedings, the AO had already addressed these concerns during the reassessment and therefore he had duly considered all the relevant facts such as explanation of credit entries in the bank account, while framing the assessment order. Thus, there is no material evidence or substantial grounds to suggest that the assessment order was either erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It is a settled law that for an order to be revised under Section 263, it must be demonstrated that the assessment order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
