TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1073
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng with the conditions mentioned in the said section 3. The ld. PCIT erred in law and facts in not appreciating the fact that the Id. Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order u/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act after making appropriate enquires, verifications and considering the materials available on records and that the view taken by the ld. Assessing Officer was one of the possible views. 4. All the grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed any return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12. Information has been received from the ITO 21(1)(1), Mumbai dated 20.03.2018 that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 77,10,000/- in Bank of Maharashtra during the F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011- 12. Further, on verification of the ITS details on ITD system & ITBA/360 degree, it is found that the assessee has made cash deposits amounting to Rs. 77,10,000/- in the savings bank account with Bank of Maharashtra on various dates in the F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to AY. 2011-12.The source of this cash deposit has not been explained by the assessee. Since the assessee has not furnished any explanation in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing proceedings under section 263(1) of the I.T. Act assessee complied. Assessee did not even bother to file return under section 148 of the I.T. Act and there is no evidence or submission by the assessee before this Bench also about filing of appeal against the assessment order. 9. This confirms that assessee was comfortable with the order of AO and intentionally was non-participating before the AO and Ld. Pr.CIT. Hence, ground no.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 10. Ground No.2 & 3 raised by the assessee are interlinked in terms of implications and facts, hence, disposed of by a common finding through the discussions in coming paras. 11. We have gone through the order of the AO passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the I.T. Act, order of Pr.CIT passed under section 263(1) of the I.T. Act and record available before us. Nowhere, we found any enquiry by AO, any submission by the assessee and logic to reach the figure of Rs. 11, 05,000/-. 12. We do not found any force in the argument of the assessee that the view taken by the AO was one of the possible views; hence, Pr.CIT cannot exercise his powers under section 263(1) of the I.T. Act. This argument holds well....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tor General or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section 120; [(iii) an order under section 92CA by the Transfer Pricing Officer;] (b) "record" [shall include and shall be deemed always to have included] all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the [Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or] Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] had been the subject matter of any appeal [filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988], the powers of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend [and shall be deemed always to have extended] to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal.] [Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icial to the interests of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. In Bismillah Trading Co. v. Intelligence Officer [2001] 248 ITR 292 (Ker.), as also in the case of Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 129 (Mad.) it was held that there must be grievous error in the order passed by the ITO which might set a bad trend or pattern for similar assessments which, on a broad reckoning, the Commissioner might think to be prejudicial to the revenue administration. The prejudice must be prejudice to the Revenue administration. In the case of Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) it has been held that the Commissioner has ample jurisdiction under section 263 to cancel the assessment and may initiate proceedings for assessment under the provisions of the Act against some other assessee who according to the income-tax authorities is liable for the income thereof. In Thalibai F. Jain ITO (1975) 101 ITR 1 (Kar), it was held that assessments made in undue haste and without an enquiry whether the income offered was that of the assessee or someone else, are prejudicial to the interes....