2025 (6) TMI 210 - AT - Income Tax

PCIT's revision upheld for erroneous assessment accepting unexplained cash deposits as sports trading income without proper inquiry under section 263

ITAT Delhi upheld PCIT's revision u/s 263 against assessee's assessment orders u/s 147. AO had accepted assessee's explanation for cash deposits of Rs. ... Revision u/s 263 - PCIT has sought revision of the orders passed u/s. 147 by blindly accepting of the contentions made by the assessee explaining the source of cash deposits in her bank account - HELD THAT:- The assessee was also unable to controvert the findings of the PCIT of there being several anomalies in the manner of conducting business noted by the PCIT, which created doubt about the existence of any sports business carried out by the assessee at all. During the course of hearing, assessee was asked whether the assessee had in the past ever filed return declaring income from sports trading activities, to which he replied in the negative. No reason to interfere with the orders of learned PCIT holding the assessment orders passed in the case of the assessee u/s. 147 to be erroneous so as to cause prejudice to the revenue since it is an undisputed fact that the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee’s explanation of the huge cash deposited in her bank account to the tune of Rs. 3.27 crores in different assessment years as arising from her business activities without a shred of evidence on record in this regard. We are in complete agreement with the ld. PCIT that the impugned assessment orders passed by the AO are without any enquiry and we concur with the ld. PCIT that the orders passed by the AO u/s.147 are erroneous causing prejudice to the interest of revenue. Decided against assessee. The core legal questions considered by the Appellate Tribunal (AT) in these appeals relate primarily to the validity and correctness of the orders passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which sought to revise the assessment orders passed under section 147 of the Act for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. Specifically, the Tribunal examined whether the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) was justified in holding that the assessment orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to the Assessing Officer's (AO) acceptance of the assessee's explanation regarding large cash deposits without proper enquiry or evidence.In essence, the issues presented and considered include:Whether the AO's acceptance of the assessee's claim that the large cash deposits in her bank account arose from her business of dealing in sports goods was justified in the absence of documentary evidence or enquiry.Whether the AO exercised due diligence and conducted necessary investigations regarding the existence and genuineness of the alleged business activities of the assessee.Whether the PCIT was correct in revising the assessment orders on the ground that they were erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under section 263.Whether the assessee's inconsistent explanations and lack of maintenance of books of account and other business records undermined the credibility of the claimed business activities.Whether statutory provisions such as section 40A(3) relating to disallowance of cash payments were properly considered by the AO.Whether the procedural and substantive lapses in the assessment proceedings justified interference by the PCIT and subsequent dismissal of the appeals filed by the assessee.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis1. Legitimacy of the AO's acceptance of cash deposits as business income without evidence or enquiryThe relevant legal framework includes section 147 of the Income-tax Act, which empowers the AO to reassess income if income has escaped assessment, and section 263, which allows the PCIT to revise orders if they are erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The principle that an assessment order must be based on proper enquiry and evidence is well-established in tax jurisprudence.The PCIT found that the AO had accepted the assessee's explanation that cash deposits totaling Rs. 1.16 crores (AY 2015-16) and Rs. 2.81 crores (AY 2014-15) were proceeds from her sports goods business without any documentary evidence or enquiry. The assessee gave two conflicting explanations: initially, the banking transactions related to a partnership firm of her husband, and later, that they arose from her own business. The AO failed to investigate these contradictions or verify the existence of the business.The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not maintain books of account, did not have a principal place of business or godown, and did not incur typical business expenses such as hiring professionals or employees. The AO did not question the genuineness of the purchases made in cash from unregistered manufacturers, nor did he consider the applicability of section 40A(3) concerning disallowance of excessive cash payments. Furthermore, the AO did not examine bank accounts other than the ICICI bank account, nor did he verify sales and purchase transactions with third parties or banks.The Court held that the AO's acceptance of the assessee's explanation without enquiry or evidence was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The lack of any documentary proof or investigation undermined the credibility of the claimed business income.2. The PCIT's authority and correctness in revising the assessment orders under section 263The PCIT's power under section 263 is to revise an order if it is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The PCIT's detailed order highlighted multiple discrepancies and procedural lapses in the assessment proceedings, including acceptance of contradictory statements, failure to verify business existence, ignoring statutory provisions on cash purchases, and lack of enquiry into bank transactions.The Tribunal concurred with the PCIT's reasoning that the AO did not apply investigative or judicious mind and that the assessment orders were passed without proper enquiry or verification. The PCIT's revision was thus justified as the original orders caused prejudice to the revenue by accepting unsubstantiated claims of business income.3. The assessee's failure to substantiate the business and its implicationsThe assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence such as books of account, trading expenses, stock details, or business model explanations. The contradictory statements about the source of cash deposits further cast doubt on the existence of the business. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had never filed returns declaring income from sports trading activities in the past, which further weakened her claim.The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to maintain books and provide evidence, combined with the AO's failure to conduct enquiry, justified the PCIT's conclusion that the assessment orders were erroneous.4. Application of section 40A(3) and other statutory provisionsThe PCIT noted that the assessee made cash purchases exceeding prescribed limits from unregistered manufacturers with hand-written bills, which should have attracted disallowance under section 40A(3). The AO did not consider this provision or verify the genuineness of these transactions, constituting a significant lapse. The Tribunal agreed that ignoring such statutory provisions contributed to the erroneous nature of the assessment orders.5. Treatment of competing arguments and evidenceThe assessee's counsel did not contest the factual findings of the PCIT regarding the absence of evidence and contradictory explanations. The Tribunal noted the absence of any credible rebuttal to the PCIT's detailed findings. The Court emphasized that the AO's failure to investigate and verify the claims was a fundamental procedural defect that prejudiced the revenue.ConclusionsThe Tribunal upheld the PCIT's revision of the assessment orders under section 263, holding that the AO's orders under section 147 were erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.Significant HoldingsThe Tribunal preserved the PCIT's detailed reasoning, including the following crucial legal observations:'The Assessing Officer has accepted the assessee's explanation of the cash deposits in her bank account to be arising from her business or trading in sports goods without conducting any enquiry or investigation and without there being any evidence on record substantiating the claim of the assessee of running a sports goods business.''The Assessing Officer has blindly accepted the theory of banking transactions out of sale proceeds of business without examining and verifying the existence of a separate business of the assessee.''The plea of the assessee that she was not aware about the maintenance of Books and Audit requirement of Books of account, filing of ITR etc. are totally unacceptable.''The orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 147 are erroneous causing prejudice to the interest of revenue.'The core principles established include:An assessment order must be based on proper enquiry and evidence; acceptance of unsubstantiated claims without verification is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.The PCIT is empowered under section 263 to revise such erroneous orders to protect the revenue's interest.Failure to maintain books of account and provide credible evidence undermines the existence of claimed business activities.Statutory provisions such as section 40A(3) must be considered in assessing the genuineness of cash transactions.Final determinations on each issue were in favour of the revenue, with the Tribunal dismissing the assessee's appeals and affirming the PCIT's revision of the assessment orders as justified and lawful.