TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1520
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Income Tax Karnal Dated: 21/23.09,2015 To Sh.Sanjeev Singh, H.No.861 Sector-9, U.E., Karnal. Sir, Sub: Show cause Notice u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2011-12 - Regarding - This is with reference to the assessment order passed in your case u/s 143(3) of the Act on 10.01.2014 at an income of Rs. 6,30,545/- + agriculture income Rs. 5,00,000/-. A perusal of assessment record for the AY 2011-12 reveals that your case was selected for scrutiny through CASS to examine the source of cash deposit of Rs. 1,00,81,585/- in your saving bank account maintained with Induslnd Bank and PNB, Karnal. On being inquired by the AO with regard to source of the cash deposits of Rs. 1,00,81,585/-, you have furnished a reply dated 21.11 2013 contending that "Cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 14 Lacs was from agricultural produce sale, Rs. 4.02 Lacs from lease money, Rs. 27,38,922/- contra entries and Rs. 8 Lacs from gifts from your brother, totaling Rs. 53,40,922/-. The remaining cash deposits are out of sale proceeds of the bananas." Thus, the amount of Rs. 53,40,922/- remained unexplained and unverified on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... making the entire addition, estimated profit on the same. Since the amount remained unexplained and the assessee never admitted that this amount is on account of unaccounted sales therefore, the Assessing Officer is not correct in doing so. Apart from the above issue, the ld.CIT also directed the Assessing Officer to tax the interest income that was not declared in the return of income. He also directed the Assessing Officer to treat the amount of Rs. 14.28 lakhs as unexplained contra entries (withdrawals from PNB and cash deposits in PNB). 3.1 Aggrieved with such order of the ld.CIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds:- "1. That the order of the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax is bad in law. 2. That the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in reopening the case of assessee U/s 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the applicant may be allowed to add, alter, amend and vary any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing." 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the IT Act. He submitted that the ld.CIT ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out of Rs. 1,00,81,585/-, explanation to the tune of Rs. 53,40,922/- was accepted and only balance of Rs. 47,40,763/- was not verified according to the CIT. However, the contention of the CIT is not correct since the assessee has explained to the Assessing Officer that the cash deposit of Rs. 47,40,763/- i.e., Rs. 32,01,250/- + Rs. 15,39,513/- was out of the sale proceeds of banana. Referring to page 36 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the explanation filed before the Assessing Officer regarding Rs. 32,01,250/-. Referring to the copy of the assessment order he drew the attention of the bench to the fact that the Assessing Officer has also considered the amount of Rs. 15,39,513/- as income earned out of banana sales. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has applied the profit rate of 8.06%. Referring to various pages of the paper book, he submitted that the assessee has correlated each and every entry including the cash deposit of Rs. 15,39,903/-. He submitted that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view and, therefore, the jurisdiction u/s 263 is not maintainable. 8. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....phor Works vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC); (vi) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200 (SC); and (vii) PTC Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (ITA No.2860/Del/2010, order dated 03.04.2018) (ITAT Delhi). 10. Referring to the explanation 2 that has been inserted in section 263 of the IT Act by the Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015, he submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, if in the opinion of the PCIT or CIT - (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119, or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. 10.1 He accordingly submitted that the grounds raised by the assessee be dismissed. 11. We have cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... out of the above sales is worked out at Rs. 1,72,440/- and accordingly an addition of Rs.l,72,440/- is made on a/c presumptive profit." 12. Thus, a perusal of the assessment order on this issue shows that the Assessing Officer has applied his mind and taken a possible view on the basis of the various details filed by the assessee. No doubt, the ld.CIT may not agree with the view of the Assessing Officer. However, it cannot be said that it is a case of no inquiry or that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is not a possible view. It has been held in various decisions that only absence of an inquiry empowers jurisdiction to the CIT to invoke the revisional power u/s 263. However, when there is some inquiry and the ld.CIT does not agree with the extent of inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer as sufficient, he cannot invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the IT Act. 13. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Leisure Wear Export reported in 341 ITR 166, has observed as under:- "The power of revision is not meant to be exercised for the purpose of directing the Assessing Officer to hold another investigation without describing as to how the....