9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he reason that the assessee has a surplus of Rs. 16 lac as opening cash balance which was subsequently deposited in the bank account in piecemeal manner on 92 occasions @ Rs. 25,000/- each. Such deposits surely have the reason for Ld. PCIT to revisit the assessment, however the amount proposed to be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A was mostly emanating from the opening cash balance. The amount escaped assessment pertains to AY 2012-13 and not relevant for the year under consideration. On the basis of such information, the department may have adopted the recourse available with them to reopen the income escaping assessment u/s 147 for the AY 2012-13. However, in the present case wherein enquires are made, explanations are offered, and a plausible view has been adopted, which cannot be set to be without application of mind by the Ld. AO, who had initiated the revisionary proceedings by issuing the notice u/s 148 and completed the assessment u/s 147. In such a scenario, we observed that specific inquiries, as expected from the Ld. AO were made and after receipt of necessary information, explanation and compliances by the assessee, a plausible view have been taken and the retune ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed order for making fresh assessment de novo to the file of the AO, is not permissible in the eyes of law; order u/s 263 by the PCIT would be invalid and is liable to be quashed. 3. The appellant craves leave, to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing. 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee is an individual, have not filed her regular return of income u/s 139 for the AY 2013-14, however, as per the information available with the department, that assessee has made cash deposits amounting to Rs. 13,97,105/- in her two-saving bank accounts maintained with State Bank of India having A/c No. 30195645884 & 20044905078 and has received interest income during the FY 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14. Since the assessee had not filed her return of income, therefore, the Ld. AO had initiated proceedings u/s 147 to assess the income escaped and to bring the same within the tax net. Notice u/s 148 was issued by Ld. AO after obtaining the approval of Ld. PCIT-2, Raipur. In response, to the said notice, assessee has e-filed her return of income on 29.12.2020, declaring total income at Rs. 1,42,620/-. As requested by the assessee, the copy of reasons reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find favour with the Ld. PCIT, who observed that the assessee fail to justify the cash deposited on 92 occasions which is not commensurate with the meagre income shown by the assessee in her return, in response to notice u/s 148. Ld. PCIT concluded that the assessment passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as per provisions of section 263 of the Act, thus, the assessment order has been set aside to the file of Ld. AO and the matter is reverted back for making a fresh assessment to examine the transactions of huge cash deposits vis-à-vis her source of income as claimed by the assessee, and to pass a fresh assessment order in a speaking manner after making all necessary inquiries required, after providing due and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in a fair and judicious manner. 5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of Ld. PCIT, in order to avail the benefit of available remedy assessee preferred an appeal before the tribunal and the same is under consideration in the present case before us. 6. At the outset, Ld. Authorized Representative on behalf of the assessee Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA (in shor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oney u/s 69A also does not found to be as per the prescribed mandate of law. It is the submission that the essential conditions required to invoke provisions of section 69A, as clarified by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT and ANR vs DN Singh dated 16.05.2013 are that 27. Turning more to s. 69A, it may be broken down into the following essential parts: (a) The assessee must be found to be the owner, (b) He must be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles; (c) The said articles must not be recorded in the books of account, if any maintained; (d) The assessee is unable to offer an Explanation regarding the nature and the source of acquiring the articles in question; or the explanation, which is offered, is found to be, in the opinion of the officer, not satisfactory; (e) If the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, then, the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed as the income of the financial year in which the assessee is found to be the owner, (f) In the case of money, the money can be deemed to be the income of the financial year," 7. Ld. AR further drew our attention to the submission of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the books of accounts of the assessee and, therefore, once the assessee has established the availability of the cash in the books of account, then the proper course of action for rejecting the said claim and making the addition is to reopen the assessment of the earlier year." d. Reliance is placed upon DCIT Vs. Smt. Veena Awasthi (ITAT) (Lucknow) Dt. 30.11.2018 That nowhere Revenue has doubted availability of cash with the assessee and Assessing Officer has also not brought out any material on record to show that cash which was withdrawn was spent on some other purpose and that cash deposited again was from undisclosed sources. The Assessing Officer has only doubted behavioural pattern of the assessee but has accepted availability of own funds in the hands of the assessee. When source of cash deposits explained and it is evident that it is the own cash of the assessee, which has been deposited in bank account, then there is no question of making addition under the head as income from undisclosed sources. e. Further reliance is placed on Judgement by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of MM Kumar and Alok Singh dated 16.04.2012. Relevant extract has been produced bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd various details like Certificates from Lakshmi Vilas bank and Certificate from Allahabad Bank, bank statements of Lakshmi Vilas Bank and Allahabad Bank, cash book for financial year 2016-17, VAT returns for financial year 2016-17 etc were submitted before the AO in response to this query regarding the cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period. We further observe that it is also not the case of the Principal CIT that the AO has taken a view which is legally impermissible. Therefore, from the above facts, we are of the considered view that the AO had made enquiries into the aspect of cash deposit in the bank accounts of the assessee during demonetization period, and after due consideration of the assessee and did not make any addition to the returned income. Accordingly, in our view, this is not a case where no enquiry has been made by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. In our view, Pr. CIT has incorrectly observed in the instant facts that the Ld. AO failed to apply his mind to the issues on hand or he had omitted to make enquiries altogether or had taken a view which was not legally plausible in the instant facts. As held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, Ld. PCIT has rightly set aside the order of Ld. AO to make necessary inquiries and re-adjudicate the issue afresh. Under such a scenario, the order of Ld. PCIT u/s 263 was reasonable, justified and well within the mandate of law, therefore, the same needs to be sustained. 11. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and the judicial pronouncements relied upon. On perusal of the assessee's PB, order of Ld. AO and the impugned order of Ld. PCIT, it is observed that during the reopening assessment u/s 147, assessee was required to furnish necessary information and explanations qua the cash deposited in her bank account to the tune of Rs. 13,84,000/- and interest income of Rs. 13,105/-. The reopening was done for the reason that as per available information with the department huge cash amounts were deposited by the assessee, whereas ROI for the relevant AY was not submitted. During the course of reassessment proceedings notice u/s 142(1) were issued twice and the onus to respond towards such notices was duly complied by the assessee. No further explanations were sought by the Ld. AO, shows that the Ld. AO was satisfied with the submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
