TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CIT cannot invoke section 263 revision powers based on mere difference of opinion on cash deposits inquiry</h1> <h3>Sh. Vijay Kumar Singla Versus Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Amritsar</h3> Sh. Vijay Kumar Singla Versus Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Amritsar - [2023] 107 ITR (Trib) 213 (ITAT [Amrit]) Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.2. Adequacy of inquiries/verification by the Assessing Officer (AO).3. Application of Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the Act.Summary:1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act:The assessee contested that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Pr. CIT set aside the AO's order to frame the assessment de novo, claiming the AO failed to verify the source of a cash deposit of Rs. 23,33,250/- in Punjab National Bank, Mansa. The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed made specific inquiries regarding the source of this deposit during the assessment proceedings, thus the Pr. CIT's invocation of Section 263 was invalid.2. Adequacy of inquiries/verification by the Assessing Officer (AO):The Tribunal noted that the AO had specifically queried the assessee about the source of the cash deposit and received a detailed reply. The AO accepted the returned income after due application of mind and verification. The Tribunal observed that the cash deposits were scattered throughout the year, not bulk deposits, and were supported by professional income and cash withdrawals, thereby dismissing the Pr. CIT's claim that the deposits were unexplained.3. Application of Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the Act:The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's action was based on a difference of opinion rather than a lack of inquiry. It reiterated that if there was an inquiry, even if inadequate, it would not justify the invocation of Section 263 merely because the Pr. CIT had a different opinion. The Tribunal supported its decision by citing relevant case law, including 'NARAIN SINGLA vs. PCIT' and 'CIT vs. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA,' which established that a mere difference of opinion does not warrant revision under Section 263.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the AO had made adequate inquiries and verified the source of the cash deposits. The Pr. CIT's invocation of Section 263 was deemed invalid, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The impugned order was quashed, and the Tribunal pronounced the order in the open court on 06.07.2023.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
