9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of deduction, etc. Whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question has to be seen. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass orders u/s 263 of the Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma [ 2010 (2) TMI 75 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that there is a distinction between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry. If there was any enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the commissioner to pass orders u/s 263 of the Act. Considering the facts of the case in hand, in the light of the judicial decision discussed above, we set aside the assessment order of the PCIT and restore the assessment order of the assessing officer dated 21-12-2017 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act - Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member And Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Judicial Member For the Appellants : Sh Rajeev Saxena Advocate, Ms Sumangla Saxena Advocate, Sh Shyam Sunder Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Rajinder Kaur CIT DR ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR: Judicial Member: This appeal by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,25,000/- The case was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS under Compete Scrutiny. The assessment was completed at an assessed income of Rs. 1,4532,260/- by making the addition under Section 143(3) of the Act. The contention of the PCIT is that while framing the assessment order the Assessing officer has not enquired about the cash deposits amounting to Rs. 835000/- there by making the assessment order not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 7. The PCIT served the following notice assuming jurisdiction us 263 of the Act: 8. A perusal of the aforementioned notice shows that the Principal CIT has alleged that the assessee has not shown the cash deposit of Rs. 8,35,000/- in the bank account of the assessee and in PPF account of his minor son. Further, the assessee put our attention to the following factual position: I have gone through the assessment record, issue raised and the details received from NSDL on the issue. The following pertinent observations are made: i) I have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case as well as examined the assessment record of the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16.It is clear that the Assessing Officer was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such transactions. It was assessing officer duty to at least call for Demat Accounts, if any linked to its bank branch in HDFC Bank, Greater Kailash -II New Delhi. 12. Considering the facts of the case in totality, we are of the considered view that the assessing officer had made specific enquiries during the assessment proceedings to which specific reply was furnished by the assessee along with supporting documentary evidences and all such evidences were duly examine and considered by the assessing officer before completing the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act. 13. The power of revision can be exercised where no enquiry, as required under the law is done. Admittedly the assessing officer asked the assessee to furnish the necessary details from time to time which were duly furnished by the assessee and after considering the same the assessing officer has completed the assessment. 14. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in ITR 108 has held as under: The power of suo motu revision under subsection (1) is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction and the same can be exercised only if the circumstances specified therein exist. Two circumstances must exist to enable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s simply because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. It may be said in such a case that in the opinion of the Commissioner the order in question is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. But that by itself will not be enough to vest the Commissioner with the power of suo motu revision because the first requirement, viz., that the order is erroneous, is absent. Similarly, if an order is erroneous but not prejudicial to the Interests of the Revenue, then also the power of suo motu revision cannot be exercised. Any and every erroneous order cannot be the subject matter of revision because the second requirement also must be fulfilled. There must be some prima facie material on record to show that tax which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation a lesser tax than what was just has been imposed. We, therefore, hold that in order to exercise power under sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Act there must be material before the Commissioner to consider that the order passed by the Income- tax Officer was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Sunbeam Auto reported in 332 ITR 167 has held that the Assessing officer in the assessment order is not required to give detailed reason in respect of each and every item of deduction, etc. Whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question has to be seen. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass orders u/s 263 of the Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. 16. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 has held that there is a distinction between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry. If there was any enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the commissioner to pass orders u/s 263 of the Act. 17. Considering the facts of the case in hand, in the light of the judicial decision discussed above, we set aside the assessment order of the PCIT dated 30-03-2021and restore the assessment order of the assessing officer dated 21-12-2017 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act 18. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20 /12/2024. - - Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
