TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not erroneous. 2.1 That the Pr. CIT has erred in not considering the submission made by the appellant that the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings, has submitted the Personal Balance sheet duly showing the "Suspense account" and bank statements and therefore the order passed by the AO can not be considered as erroneous , as the assessment order has been passed after proper examination/ verification of the " Suspense account". 2.2 That the Pr. CIT has erred in passing the order u/s 263 directing the A.O to examine the outstanding balance in suspense account by not considering the submission of the appellant that the alleged issue of verification of Suspense Account is not related to any seized material found during the course of search and therefore cannot form subject matter of 153A assessment in a non abated assessment year as held by jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla ( 61 Taxman.com 412). 3. The Pr. CIT has erred in passing the order u/s 263 directing the AO to examine the balance of Rs. 18,87,160/- shown in the personal balance sheet and addition of Rs. 58,500/- during the year in the suspense account by o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....008-09 is reproduced hereunder: "Sub:Show cause u/s 263 of the IncomeTax Act,1961 in the case of Shri Dinesh Kumar (PAN : AIOPG3637K) in respect of the assessment order u/s 153C/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 31.03.2016 for A.Y. 2008-09 -Reg. Kindly refer to the subject mentioned above. 2. The assessment records of your case for the A.Y. 2008-09 were called for and examined by the undersigned. From perusal of the assessment records, it is seen that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O) , Central Circle-19, New Delhi u/s 153C/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.3.2016 is appears to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as per observations given hereunder: (a) It is seen from the Balance Sheet of the assessment records that there was a Suspense A/c to the tune of Rs. 18,28,660/- which was not verified by the AO during the assessment proceedings. Thus, this approach on the part of an AO for not verifying the suspense a/c amount shown by assessee is prima facie appears to be erroneous so as to cause prejudice to the interest of Revenue. Thus, the assessment order passed in your case is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent for Assessment Year 2008-09, the A.O. has accepted the balance sheet showing suspense account of Rs. 18,28,660/- without proper examination/verification. I, thus, hold that the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee by the Assessing Officer, Central Circle-19, New Delhi on 31.03.2016 u/s. 153A/143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Thus, the said order is set aside and the assessment proceedings are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer on the aforesaid issue only. The AO is directed to frame the assessment afresh as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making proper inquiries and verifications. The AO shall note that during fresh assessment, AO shall restrict himself to examining the transaction in Suspense A/c and taking such examination to its logical culmination as per law only. He shall also afford due opportunity to assessee as per law. Sd/-(RKS Pandya) Pr.CIT, Central-2, New Delhi 3. Aggrieved by order of Ld. CIT, assessee is in appeal before us now. 4. Ld.AR submitted that in respect of all Assessment Years, sec. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecific reference to the suspense account of assessee, while passing assessment order under section 153A read with 143 (3) of the Act. 6. We have perused the submissions advanced by both the sides in the light of the records placed before us. 7. At the outset we do not agree with the submissions advanced by Ld.AR regarding sec.263 proceedings being bad in law. The view canvassed by Ld.CIT, D.R. regarding validity of assessment u/s 153A, in our considered opinion is what Hon'ble High Court has held in case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia reported in (2012) 24 taxmann.com 98. Moreover, now Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act is inserted in the statute which is declaratory and claraficatory in nature to declare the law and provide clarity on the issue whereby if the A.O. failed to make any enquiry or necessary verification which should have been made, the order becomes erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Limited v. CIT reported in (2000) 109 Taxman 66 (SC) held that if AO accepted the entry in the statement of account filed by the taxpayer without making enquiry, the said order of th....