AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....53D was also erroneous,while revising the order passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3). In the absence of such satisfaction whether the order passed by the Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax is illegal and bad in law. 3. Whether the revision order passed by the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax without referring to the relevant clause of Explanation 2 is illegal and bad in law. 4. Appellant craves leave to add or alter any other ground at the time of hearing." 2. At the very outset, it was submitted by the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short "A.R") for the assessee that the present appeal involves a delay of 41 days. As regards the reasons leading to the aforesaid delay, it is the claim of the assessee before us that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 27.04.2021 in Miscellaneous Application No.665/2021 had extended the period of limitation as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, and the period of limitation from 01.03.2020 to 19.07.2021 has been excluded till further order.Backed by the aforesaid fact, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the delay involved in filing of the present a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of search proceedings. Observing that the Assessing Officer had failed to consider the aforesaid cash receipt while framing the assessment for the year under consideration, the Pr. CIT holding a conviction that the same thus had rendered the order passed by him as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, therein called upon the assessee to explain as to why it may not be revised u/s.263 of the Act. 4. In reply, the assesee came forth with multiple contentions to impress upon the Pr. CIT that the Assessing Officer had framed the assessment after due application of mind and the order passed by him being as per the mandate of law was not amenable for revision u/s 263 of the Act, viz. (i) that Dr. Chandrashekhar Pakhmude(supra) had in his subsequent statement recorded on 20.03.2017 and also, in the course of his cross-examination by the assesee had retracted from his earlier statement that was recorded in the course of the search proceedings u/s.132(4) of the Act, for the reason that the same was recorded under due pressure; and (ii) that the Assessing Officer had carried out detailed verification qua the issue in question, i.e., impugned receipt of cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rating at length on the issue in question, i.e., receipt of the impugned amount of cash of Rs.85 lacs as per seized " loose paper No.50/Bundle No.1", only on being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee had refrained from drawing any adverse inferences on the said count, therefore, the Pr. CIT could not have in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction sought substitution of his view as against that arrived at by the Assessing Officer. In order to buttress his aforesaid claim the Ld. AR had taken us through the queries that were raised by the Assessing Officer vide a letter dated 12.10.2017 that was issued by him in the course of the assessment proceedings. Adverting to the queries therein raised, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the Assessing Officer had specifically called upon the assessee to furnish an explanation as regards the contents of the seized loose sheet No.50/Bundle No.1 (Page No 11/12 of the APB). We find that pursuant to the aforesaid query letter, the assesee had vide its letter dated 17.10.2017 (Page No.13 of APB) sought for a copy of the statement of Dr. Chandrashekhar Pakhmude (supra) that was recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act a/w. a copy of the seized loo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the orders of the lower authorities. 10. After giving a thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand in the backdrop of the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives for both the parties, we find substantial force in the claim of the Ld. AR, that now when the Assessing Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings after deliberating at length on the contents of the seized document, i.e., loose sheet No.50/Bundle No.1 and finding the explanation of the assessee in order had accepted the same, therefore, the Pr. CIT was precluded from triggering his revisional jurisdiction with a purpose to substitute his view as against that arrived at by the Assessing Officer. As observed by us hereinabove, the contents of the seized loose sheet No.50/Bundle No.1 reveals the entries of payments, i.e., both in cash and cheque aggregating to Rs.1.10 crore spread over the period 18.10.2011 to 24.02.2013, as under: Sr. No. Date By Amount 1. 18.10.2011 Cash 1000000 2. 22.10.2011 Cash 1000000 3. 07.01.2012 Cash 1000000 4. 16.01.2012 Cash 1000000 5. 23.01.2012 Cheque 500000 6. 23.01.2012 Cash 500000 7. 11.02.2012 Cheque 1000000 8. 21.02.2012 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enied of having made any payment of Rs. 70 lacs (supra) by the hospital, viz. M/s. Neuron Brain Spine and Criticare Centre, Dhantoli, Nagpur to M/s. Concrete Developers i.e. the assessee firm. 11. On being confronted with the cheque payment of Rs. 25 lacs (supra), it was stated by Dr. Chandrashekhar Pakhmude (supra) that the payment to the said extent was made to the assessee firm i.e.M/s. Concrete Developers for construction of hospital at Dhantoli, Nagpur. Once again on being confronted with the notings in respect of the balance amount of Rs.85 lacs (supra) mentioned in the aforesaid seized loose paper No.50/Bundle No.1, it was stated by him that the same were rough notings/estimation. Apart from that we find that Dr. Chandrashekhar Pakhmude(supra) on being queried that he had earlier vide Question No. 14/15 of his statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act, dated 13.02.2017 categorically stated that the cash payments mentioned in the seized loose sheet No.50/Bundle No.1 were payments that were given to M/s. Concrete Developers for construction of Neuron Hospital, had therein stated that as at the relevant point of time he was under significant stress, therefore, he had merely on ....