TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 1163
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w and on facts in setting aside the Order u/s 143(3) and directing the Assessing Officer to verify the specific issue of cash deposited in a particular Bank without appreciating the non-existence of twin conditions of "Erroneous" and "Prejudicial" order in respect of issue. The order of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax be quashed. 3. The learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Surat has erred on facts and in law in assuming Jurisdiction u/s 263 by substituting his opinion with that of Assessing Officer, formed after detailed examination / inquiries and proper application of mind which is not permissible in law. The order of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax be quashed. 4. The learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Surat has grievously erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to verify cash deposited in a particular bank account without offering any reasons for reinvestigation of issue already raised, verified and accepted by Assessing Officer after inquiry and appreciation of evidences. The order of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax be quashed. 5. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, modify, amend ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the same was received on 26.12.2018, that is, after passing the assessment order by assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 24.12.2018. In other words, the Indusind Bank has replied to the assessing officer and submitted the bank statement to the assessing officer on 26.12.2018, therefore, assessing officer did not examine the same, as the assessment order U/s 143(3) was framed by assessing officer on 24.12.2018, much before the date of 26.12.2018, therefore, the bank statement of Indusind Bank has remained unverified. Therefore, ld PCIT noticed that assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee was finalized u/s 143(3) on 24.12.2018. Therefore, it is apparent that the transactions in this bank account were not verified by the Assessing Officer while finalizing the assessment proceedings. In view of the above facts and ongoing through the assessment order and assessment records, it has been observed by ld PCIT that the assessment made by the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 24.12.2018, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue and accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. The relevant para of the said show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IR information. Further, on perusal of the case records, it is noticed that you have maintained bank account with Indusind Bank bearing A/c. No. 159909969836. The then AO issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Act to the Indusind Bank and reply to the same was received on 26.12.2018. However, the assessment proceedings in your case was finalized u/s 143(3) on 24.12.2018. Therefore, it is apparent that the transactions in this bank account were not verified properly by the Assessing Officer while finalizing the assessment proceedings. On perusal of the bank account statement, it is noticed that there were credits of more than 150 cheques in this bank account and the total credits in the bank account works out to the tune of Rs. 1,75,94,227/-. Therefore, it is evident that the assessment in your case was completed without proper verification and enquiries. In view of the above facts, it is evident that there was a failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to carry out further verification/enquiries or computing the total income as per the provisions of the Act on the above mentioned two issues. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Sale Deed, it is noticed that the possession of the property was handed over only on the date of registered sale deed. Therefore, the assessee should have shown either the capital gain or profit during the period relevant to assessment year 2016-17. (2) In respect of the issue of unverified Bank Account, the assessee has submitted that the copy of the bank statement in respect of account No.200999694833 was submitted on 13.12.2018 during the course of assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer. As far as the credit in the said bank accounts, of Rs. 1,76,77,225/-, the assessee has stated that an amount of Rs. 1,61,44,975/- credited to this account was received as confirming party profit and the same has also been included in the return of income under the head short term capital gain. 8. The ld PCIT, after going through the reply of the assessee has observed the following: (i) In respect of transactions pertaining to the property situated at Block No. 85 for a total consideration of Rs. 3,04,43,950/-(including Stamp Duty of Rs. 14,08,300/-, Registration Fees of Rs. 2,87,650/- and Advocate Fees of Rs. 8,000/-) on 26.07.2012 is found verifiable fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o submission has been made by the assessee in respect of the Account No. 159909969836, which was actually mentioned in the show cause notice. However, on perusal of the assessment records, it was noticed that the assessee has made a submission vide point No.5 on 13.12.2018 wherein the assessee has furnished a copy of bank statement and cash flow statement wherein the assessee has stated that cash deposits in the above account was made out of cash on hand and withdrawals from the firm M/s. Anjani Textiles. However, it was noted by ld PCIT that Assessing Officer himself has mentioned that assessee has not produced any cash book during the year under consideration. Therefore, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has not verified the source of cash deposits in the above mentioned bank account during the course of assessment proceedings. On perusal of the same, it is quite evident that the Assessing Officer has not made verification of the transactions and cash deposits in Account No. 159909969836 held with Indusind Bank during the course of assessment proceedings which should have been made and hence assessment order in question is found to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort "the ld. DR") for the Revenue relied on the order of the ld. PCIT vide para no.9 and 10 of the ld. PCIT order dated 31.03.2021 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer received the bank statement after completion of assessment proceedings which is recorded in pare no.7 of the ld. PCIT order, therefore the bank statement which was received by the Assessing Officer after completion of the assessment proceedings has not been examined by the Assessing Officer and therefore order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, therefore the order of the ld. PCIT is upheld. 13. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. PCIT and other material brought on record. We note that ld PCIT has exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, only for the issue that Assessing Officer has not verified the transactions reflected in the Bank Account No. 159909969836, as the Assessing Offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not lie in invoking of the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. C.I.T. was definitely outside the purview of section 263 of the Act. As noted above, the exercise aimed at ascertaining the correct income of the assessee has been fulfilled by the Ld. A.O. by exercising his quasi-judicial functions vis-a-vis passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, certainly it is not a case wherein adequate enquiries at the assessment stage were not carried out or assessment was made in haste. However, what is an opinion formed as a result of these enquiries and verification of the materials is something which is in exclusive domain of the Assessing Officer, and even if Ld. Pr. Commissioner does not agree with the results of such enquiries, the resultant order cannot be subjected to revision proceedings. For that we rely on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of I.T.A.T., Kolkata in the case of Smt. Juthika Kar vs. I....