9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring demonetization period were specifically verified during original assessment proceedings wherein assessee produced all necessary documents as asked for by AO, it was not a case where no enquiry was made by AO during course of assessment proceedings regarding cash deposits, and therefore, impugned revision proceedings u/s 263 was to be quashed. We further find that in Rajmal Kanwar [ 2016 (2) TMI 1317 - ITAT JAIPUR] also held that where AO has made sufficient enquiry, considered survey record and surrender made by assessee and after considering submissions of assessee completed assessment proceedings u/s 143(3), assessment order could not be held to be an erroneous order which was prejudicial to interest of revenue. We also find merit in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 26.03.2022. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. PCITE, Valsad has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and I law in considering the assessment order dated 28.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and passing order u/s 263, directing to pass fresh assessment order in the case. 2.Prayer 2.1 The order u/s 263 passed by the PCIT may be kindly set aside. 2.2 Personal hearing may be granted. 2.3 Any other relief that your honours may deem fit may be granted. 3. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, modify alter or delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing. 2. Rival submission of both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order on 26.03.2022 without making any addition. Subsequently, assessment order was revised by Ld. PCIT by invoking the provisions of 263 of the Act vide order dated 15.03.2024. The Ld. PCIT in his show-cause notice dated 07.02.2024 raising exactly on similar issue in the show cause notice, which was the subject-matter reopening. In the show-cause notice, Ld. PCIT mentioned that Assessing Officer not considered the report of ITO (Investigation) and no addition was made by stating that no amount was withdrawn from cash book. The assessment order passed by Assessing Office on 28.03.2022 is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that case of assessee was reopened for assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al assessment proceedings wherein assessee produced all necessary documents as asked for by Assessing Officer, it was not a case where no enquiry was made by Assessing Officer during course of assessment proceedings regarding cash deposits, and therefore, impugned revision proceedings under section 263 is to be quashed. To support his submission, Ld. AR of the assessee also relied upon following decisions: Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. PCIT [2023] 157 taxmann.com 195 (Del- Trib.) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT [2005] 97 ITD 361 (Ahmedabad-ITAT)/[2006] 99 TTJ 1262 (Ahmedabad-ITAT) Rajmal Kanwar vs. CIT [2017] 82 taxmann.com 119 (Jaipur-Trib.) CIT vs. Jagdish Kalani [2007] 163 Taxman 267 (MP)[2007] 295 ITR 539 (MP) CIT vs. State Bank of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 15.03.2022. Filing of reply is duly acknowledged by Assessing Officer in para- 3.4 of assessment order. Along with reply, assessee furnished bank statement, copy of VAT return, sales invoice, delivery channel, stock register and further stated that he has ready to furnish any further information or details as and when asked for on providing reasonable time. The assessee also furnished VAT return. We find that Assessing Office in para-4 of assessment order, recorded that from the details furnished by assessee, it is seen that sales transaction made by assessee with M/s Unique Polypack has been duly recorded in the books of account and no cash withdrawal are shown. The returned of income of assessee was accepted and no adverse inference h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment proceedings regarding cash deposits, and therefore, impugned revision proceedings under section 263 was to be quashed. We further find that Jaipur Benches of Tribunal in Rajmal Kanwar vs. CIT 82 taxmann.com 119 (Jaipur- Trib.) also held that where Assessing Officer has made sufficient enquiry, considered survey record and surrender made by assessee and after considering submissions of assessee completed assessment proceedings under section 143(3), assessment order could not be held to be an erroneous order which was prejudicial to interest of revenue. 8. We also find merit in the contention of Ld.AR of the assessee that similar assessment order for assessment year 2016-17 wherein similar transaction has been accepted by Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
