TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 949
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of iron scrap, e-filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 11.11.2016, admitting total income of Rs. 18,79,430/-. In this case a survey operation u/s. 133A was conducted on 09.02.2016. During the survey operations, deficit cash balance was found in the hands of the assessee which resulted in at Rs. 19,93,291/- as additions to the income of the assessee. Consequently, proceedings u/s. 147 were initiated and notice u/s. 148 was issued and served on the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee filed his return of income declaring the same income as disclosed i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the provisions of law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. Pr. CIT did not initiate action u/s. 263 of the IT Act on his own accord but initiated action basing on the recommendations of the same Assessing Officer who passed the original order 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the IT Act dt. 05.12.2017, therefore, the impugned order is not a valid order in the eyes of law. 3. The legal requirement under the provision of sec. 263 of the IT Act is that the ld. Pr. CIT is empowered to call for and examine the records and in this case without examining the records, the Ld. Pr. CIT has come to adverse conclusions basing on the recommendations of the same Assessing Officer who passed the original order. 4. The Ld. Principal Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee during the survey proceedings totalling to Rs. 19,93,291/- while filing the return of income, which was duly recorded in the assessment order dated 05.12.2017. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the assessee has declared the income over and above the undisclosed income found during the survey and paid the taxes accordingly, hence, the order of the AO is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He prayed for quashing the order u/s. 263 of the Act. 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the revenue authorities. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the authorities below. We find from the order of the AO passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 05.12.2017 that the AO has o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eated as "undisclosed investment" under Section 69 of the Act. In response to the notices, elaborate explanations were offered by the assessees, which were fortifiable by consistent views by various Benches of the Tribunal as well as the High Courts. The Assessing Officer, upon consideration, accepted the explanation and taxed the additional income as "business income" @30% instead of 60% as per Section 115BBE of the Act. No contrary view either of any High Court or the Apex Court has been placed before us to demonstrate that the explanations offered by the assessee in the course of assessment were either perverse or contrary to law. In view of such matter, we are constrained to hold no case of perversity or lack of enquiry on the ....