TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Nagercoil for the Assessment Year 2014 - 2015, u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 14.06.2016. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal is time barred by 79 days and the Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit stating the reasons. We noted that the revision order was received by the Assessee on 03.04.2019 but the Assessee's regular Chartered Accountant who appeared before the PCIT on 19.03.2019, Shri C. Bose Ebenezer, F.C.A. advised the Assessee not to file an appeal but consequently a new Chartered Accountant was appointed and the newly appointed Chartered Accountant, Shri E. Raja Jeya Sekar, Nagercoil advised the Assessee to file an appeal agains....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order of revision under consideration was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 3. The PCIT failed to appreciate that the twin conditions of error and prejudice causing to the revenue were not satisfied concurrently while vitiating the order of the revision under various facets and ought to have appreciated that the distinction between the lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry was completely overlooked while the powers of revision was erroneously exercised on the presumption of inadequate enquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer in completing the scrutiny assessment." 5. The learned Counsel for the Assessee first of all took us through the show-cause issued b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relevant portion reads as under: "7.................. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has failed to discuss as to why and as to how the source of cash deposit of Rs. 30,00,000/- in the Axis Bank A/c. No. 405010100020624 and of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the Axis Bank A/c. No. 005100050309160 was accepted as explained and therefore the revisional powers under section 263 would be justified in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raja Industries also (340 ITR 344). 6. The learned Counsel for the Assessee then took us through the assessment order and stated that this case was selected for limited scrutiny under the Computer-Aided Scrutiny Selection [CASS] for the reason ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee from her husband as a gift and which was examined by the Assessing Officer and verified, the cash deposits of Rs. 30.00 lakhs and Rs. 10.00 lakhs respectively were found genuine. On the same set of facts, the PCIT cannot revise the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act for the reason that it is a case of complete enquiry in the source of cash deposits, as the cash was received from her husband as a gift and also that the Assessee had submitted the copy of the return of income and statement of the bank account of her husband which were verified as noted by the Assessing Officer. 8. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative heavily relied on the revision order passed by the PCIT and stated that the Assesse....