2021 (9) TMI 1211 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal affirms CIT's order for re-examination of cash deposits & property funds. AO's lack of documentation leads to dismissal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order under Section 263, directing the AO to re-examine issues related to cash deposits and funds for property purchase. The ... Revision u/s 263 by CIT - AO did not make any reference to the facts that transpired in the course of assessment proceedings and make a reference to those facts in the assessment order - HELD THAT:- AO accepting the return of income does not make any reference to any of the arguments put forward on behalf of the assessee and has merely accepted the return of income filed by the assessee -The entire details were filed and the order itself indicates that it can be inferred that the Assessing Officer not only made enquiries, but satisfied himself with the assessee's replies furnished from time to time in support of its stand. As decided in Infosys Technologies Ltd [2012 (1) TMI 76 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] if the order of the AO does not disclose the basis of his conclusion, then jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act can be ignored. In the present case, the order of the AO is silent on his conclusions on issues raised by him in the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and merely accepted the returned income. Therefore, the CIT was justified in directing the AO to examine the issues that were set out for limited scrutiny under CASS afresh. The assessee is always at liberty to show as to how no adverse inference or addition is called for. We, therefore, confirm the order of the CIT. - Decided against assessee. Issues Involved:1. Whether the assessment order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.2. Whether the AO made necessary inquiries and verifications regarding the assessee's cash deposits and property purchase.Detailed Analysis:1. Erroneous and Prejudicial Assessment Order:The CIT invoked Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, contending that the assessment order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The CIT highlighted that the AO did not thoroughly analyze the documents furnished by the assessee concerning large cash deposits and the purchase of property. Specifically, the CIT noted that the AO failed to scrutinize the circumstances under which cash cheques were issued to third parties and whether these sums were available for further deposit in the bank account. The CIT concluded that the AO's acceptance of the assessee's submissions without detailed inquiry rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest.2. Adequacy of Inquiries and Verifications by AO:The assessee contended that the AO made the required inquiries during the assessment proceedings and was satisfied with the explanations provided. The AO's assessment order, however, did not document any detailed analysis or reasons for accepting the assessee's claims. The Tribunal referred to the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., which emphasized that every conclusion and finding by the assessing authority should be supported by reasons, regardless of whether the order is favorable or adverse to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the AO's order was silent on his conclusions regarding the issues raised in the notice under Section 143(2) and merely accepted the returned income without documenting the basis for his conclusions.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order under Section 263, directing the AO to re-examine the issues related to the cash deposits and the availability of funds for the property purchase. The Tribunal agreed that the AO's failure to document the basis for his conclusions made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, affirming the CIT's directive for a fresh examination of the issues.Pronouncement:The judgment was pronounced in the open court, confirming the CIT's order and dismissing the assessee's appeal.