AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 996
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that as per information received by the tax administration, it was noted that the assessee had made an investment of Rs. 5,06,562/- towards purchase of immovable property from M/s. Bajwa Developers Ltd. Since the assessee had not filed any return of income u/s. 139(1) and 139(4) of the Act, proceedings were initiated u/s. 147 by issuance of notice dated 28.03.2019 after recording of reasons. In response thereto, the assessee filed her return declaring income of Rs. 1,34,401/-. Notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee and considering the reply, the returned income was accepted by the AO by an order dated 23.11.2019. This order was subjected to the Revisionary proceedings by the Ld. PCIT this order is under challenge in the present proceedings. 3. The Ld. AR inviting attention to the assessment order and the reply given to the Ld. PCIT submitted that the issue had been enquired into by the AO in detail specifically on this point. It was subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was prepared just a few days before the passing of the assessment order. It was submitted that what is wrong in that. Evidence when called forth by the AO was addressed by the assessee as per record. The Ld. PCIT, it was assailed further, holds that "The Assessing Officer simply placed this non-descript piece of paper on the assessment records, as the noting sheet entry dated 20-11-2019 in the file reads as under "Sh. Dinesh Chandel, Advocate attended. Furnished details asked for. Case discussed and assessed.". It was argued what was wrong in accepting this. The suspicion in Ld. PCIT's mind, it was submitted, is the sole reason. The Ld. PCIT, it was submitted, ignoring the fact that the relationship was demonstrated and identity of the nephew by way of his PAN number stood quoted concluded that the affidavit is a bald self serving document without upsetting its contents. It was his submission that the AO has looked into the relevant data on the basis of PAN details available and apparently was satisfied and accepted the flow of money from the said nephew and in the order passed by the Ld. PCIT neither the relationship has been upset nor the fact that the said amount was not ava....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of witness, Dated: 24th November 2011. SELLER - Sd/- Witness No:1 Sd/- PURCHASER - Sd/- [Pawan Kumar, H.No. 112/1, Manimajra] (emphasis supplied) 3.4. Referring to page 9 of the impugned order, it was submitted that the fact that this evidence was available to the AO was known to the Ld. PCIT also. The Ld. PCIT at page 9 of her order it was submitted, herself has observed, "Once again the assessing officer did not care to raise any query about this non-descript piece of paper, and simply placed the same on the assessment record on the date of the last hearing i.e. 20.11.2019 while recording on the noting sheet "case discussed and assessed." The AO did not care to evaluate the evidentiary value of this piece of paper, or ascertain the identity of the so-called purchaser, his capacity to invest an amount of Rs. 9.25 lac in the property, his capacity to pay Rs. 3.25 lac as advance, and the genuineness of the entire transaction. The AO did not even try to enquire if the deal had actually materialized or not. The evidence, it was submitted, was not upset by the Ld. PCIT. It was discarded holding it to be "in house production to concoct a coc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Patiala, (65 taxmann.com 324), (Chandigarh - Trib.) 2. CIT v. Krishna Capbox (2015) (Allahabad) 60 Taxmann.com 243 3. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Bathinda v. Jiwan Kumar (2017) 82 taxmann.com 221 4. Narain Singla v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central) Ludhiana (2015) 62 taxmann.com 255 5. Pawan Kumar Vs. ITAT (2015) 62 taxmann.com 260 (Chandigarh) 3.9. Relying on the above facts and law, it was his submission that the Revisionary Power has been wrongly exercised by the Ld. PCIT in a casual manner without pointing out any error in the order let alone such an error which can be said to be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3.10. In the facts of the present case, it was his submission that it is not a case of no enquiry as repeatedly the Ld. PCIT makes a reference to the various dates on which hearing was fixed vide specific notices issued to the assessee. The AO considering the smallness of the amounts involved and considering the supporting evidences chose possibly not to discuss it in the order. This fact cannot be held against the assessee. 3.11. It was also reiterated that merely because the assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct to acceptance of evidence has been formed. The reason for re-opening of assessment was clearly laid down in the notice under section 148 of the Act and the same were put forth to the assessee at the time of assessment. It is hereby submitted that the jurisdiction assumed by your good office under section 263 of the Act is bad in law as you are placing reliance on Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the Act to allege that enquiries have not been made in the subject case. The clear perusal of the assessment file shows that the Ld. AO had formed an opinion with respect to escapement of income, called for the necessary evidence, discussed the matter with the Authorized Representative of the assessee and after proper perusal arrived at the conclusion that there is no escapement of income. In the light of the above submissions on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is most humbly prayed that the proceedings under section 263 be dropped. It is prayed that if any adverse action, prejudicial to the interest of the assessee is preferred after considering the reply above, an opportunity to represent and defend the revision of order through personal hearing ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that the AO in the facts of the present case blindly accepted whatever evidence was placed before him. No effort to carry out any enquiry u/s. 133(6) was made by the AO. It was also his submission that the present case is not a case where the assessee has filed his return. It is a case wherein on account of investigation in the specific property, notice was issued to the assessee u/s. 148 and as a result of this, assessment was concluded u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act. Thus, it was his prayer that the present case is a fit case for upholding the order passed by the Ld. PCIT in exercising her Revisionary Powers. The order passed by the AO was passed without carrying out full and proper enquiries. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the facts of the present case, admittedly enquiries on the relevant facts were carried out by the AO. It is seen that these have been noticed by the Ld. PCIT also in her order. However, these have been discarded on the grounds of being bald documents. The Ld. PCIT having gone through the records of the AO has noticed that supporting documents have been called forth which have been examined and th....