TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 36
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) 2017-18. 2. The short issue arising in this appeal is the maintainability in law of the impugned order (IO) in the facts and circumstances of the case. The assessee, a co-operative bank, was assessed following the verification procedure under the Act; the proceedings being initiated as an abnormal increase in cash deposits was observed during the demonetization period (09/11/2016 to 31/12/2016) as compared to the pre-demonetization period. The enquiry in this regard during assessment proceedings, as it appears from the assessment order, was suitably replied by the assessee, so that no adverse inference was drawn by the Assessing Officer (AO), and the assessment completed at the returned income of Rs. 62.88 lacs. The assessee was subseq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er 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. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 We are wholly unimpressed with the argument by the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Usrethe, as regards the unsustainability of sec. 263 proceedings as the assessment proceedings had been initiated for the limited purpose of examining the cash deposit transactions during the relevant year (and which had been examined and found satisfactory), as well as that the re-assessment proceedings had also been initiated in the assessee's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an inquiry. It is because it is incumbent on him to further investigate the facts stated in the return when circumstances would make such an inquiry prudent that the word "erroneous" in section 263 includes the failure to make such an inquiry. The order becomes erroneous because such an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. This, in fact, represents trite law, toward which case law is legion, explained per several decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court, with in fact the said decision, rendered with reference to judicial precedents, itself including two by the said co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clear and pointed reply in the matter. It would be a different matter, we may clarify, where the assessee had not satisfactorily replied or suitably addressed the concerns of the competent authority. Also, this, we are conscious, may not be feasible in all cases, and there may be circumstances, as where verification of facts and figures is required, in which case the ld. Pr. CIT would be justified in, stating the reason/s, directing the assessing authority suitably. How could in the instant case, then, the assessee's claim, which, qua this limb (of the deduction), works to Rs. 156.88 lacs (i.e., Rs. 175.73 lacs - Rs. 18.85 lacs), be said to be in excess? It is only, where so, even if prima facie, that the revisionary authority can be regard....