9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore we are of the considered view that, there was failure on the part of the AO to make necessary enquiry / verification, hence the order of the Ld. AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, in our opinion the invocation of section 263 by the PCIT(C) is as per law. Accordingly, we dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee. - Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR ORDER PER SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M. : This appeal is filed by Shri Venkata Krishna Tatineni, Secunderabad ( the assessee ), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad ( Ld. PCIT(C) ), dated 05.10.2023 for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are as under : 1. The order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income- Tax is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax erred in holding that the tax payable in respect of Rs. 28,20,100/- is as per the provisions of Sec. 115BBE of the I.T. Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. AO on 21.10.2021. After considering the submission of the assessee, the Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act on 30.12.2021 accepting the returned income of the assessee. Thereafter the Ld. PCIT(C) invoked section 263 of the Act, against the order passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 143(3) on 30.12.2021 by issuing show cause notice on 15.09.2023. After considering the submission of the assessee, the Ld. PCIT(C) set aside the order to the file of Ld. AO for limited purpose of assessing income of Rs. 28,20,100/- u/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act treating the same as unexplained cash and also made a direction for invoking relevant penal provisions of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. PCIT(C), the assessee is in appeal before us. Learned Authorised Representative ( Ld. AR ) submitted that ground nos.1 6 are general in nature and no separate adjudication is required on the same. With regard to ground nos.2 to 4, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had already shown the income of Rs. 28,20,100/- in his ROI under income from other sources and had already explained the sources of the same before the Ld. AO. Relying on the submission of the assessee, the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. AO nor before the Ld. PCIT(C) the list of persons from whom he received the income and to whom he provided the said services. Therefore, we did not find any irregularity in the order of Ld.PCIT(C). Hence we uphold the order of Ld. PCIT(C). 7. With regard to ground no.5, the Ld. AR submitted that the invocation of proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. He submitted that the seized cash had already been explained to Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings and after verification of the same, the Ld. AO had taken one of the possible view. He further submitted that if two views are possible and the Ld. AO had adopted one of the view, the order of the Ld. AO cannot be treated as erroneous causing prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore in that case section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked. Finally, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench that the invocation of section 263 by Ld. PCIT(C) is bad in law and is therefore required to be quashed. 8. Per contra, the Learned Department Representative ( Ld. DR ) relied on the order of Ld. PCIT(C) and reiterated to uphold the same. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer 82 [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] had been the subject matter of any appeal filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. Explanation 2. For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer 82 [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
