CIT revision order under section 263 upheld for unexplained cash deposits from tomato sales

ITAT Visakhapatnam upheld CIT's revision order u/s 263 regarding unexplained cash deposits. The assessee claimed cash deposits were from tomato sale proceeds but failed to provide purchaser details or documentary evidence. AO accepted the explanation without proper verification or inquiry despite the case being selected for scrutiny. CIT correctly found the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interest, directing reassessment with proper inquiries. The tribunal sustained CIT's order, deciding against the assessee.

---

---

Issues:
The issues involved in this judgment are the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the validity of the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT U/s. 263 of the Act.

Condonation of Delay:
The appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 337 days, and the assessee provided a detailed explanation for the delay, stating that she was not aware of the appealable nature of the order passed U/s. 263 of the Act. The Tribunal found the cause presented by the assessee to be reasonable and sufficient, thus condoning the delay and proceeding to adjudicate the appeal on merits.

Validity of Order U/s. 263 of the Act:
The case involved an individual engaged in the business of perishable vegetables, specifically tomatoes on a commission basis. The Ld. Pr. CIT, after examining the assessment record, found the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. Pr. CIT directed the Ld. AO to re-do the assessment after making necessary inquiries and verifications. The assessee challenged this order on various grounds, arguing that the Ld. AO's order was not erroneous and that the assessment order itself was invalid due to being in the name of a deceased person.

The Ld. AR contended that the Ld. Pr. CIT's order was not in accordance with the law, as the Ld. AO had considered and verified the submissions and evidences provided by the Legal Representative of the assessee. However, the Ld. Pr. CIT found discrepancies in the information provided by the assessee and concluded that the Ld. AO had not thoroughly examined the details before accepting the explanations. The Ld. DR supported the decision of the Ld. Pr. CIT, emphasizing the lack of evidence to support the cash deposits claimed by the assessee.

After hearing both sides and examining the material, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. Pr. CIT, stating that the Ld. AO had failed to conduct proper inquiries and verifications before accepting the explanations provided. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment order being in the name of a deceased person did not invalidate the proceedings, citing a relevant Supreme Court decision. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed all grounds raised by the assessee and upheld the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT.

In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Tribunal, and the decision was pronounced in open court on 28th February 2024.

---