TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... DIN & Order No.ITBA/COMF/17/2020-21/1032078366(1) /1032078792(1) dated 31.03.2021 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016- 17. Since the grounds raised in these appeals are common, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being passed and the facts are extracted from I.T.A.113/Viz/2021, for the sake of convenience as under. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed her return of income for the A.Y.2016-17, admitting total income of Rs.4,13,280/-. Later on, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') were issued, calling for certain information. On examination of the information filed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....how cause notice, the assessee filed written submissions before the Ld.Pr.CIT as follows : "In this connection, I hereby bring to your kind notice that I have already submitted electronically all the information, details, evidences and documents in support of purchase of 1/3 share of immovable property during the previous year 2015-16, relevant to the Asst.Year 2016-17 at the time of assessment proceedings. The then Learned Assessing Officer also examined my case thoroughly and verified information, details, evidences and documents submitted by me and passed order u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act by accepting the income admitted by me on 22.11.2018. So, at this point of time, it is not at all justified to revise my assessment u/s 263 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....available on record, the Ld.Pr.CIT held that, the assessee, except stating that the cash paid / deposited was out of the balance available in her books, had not submitted any documentary evidence to substantiate her claim and the AO had not verified the same and hence, the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld.Pr.CIT directed the AO to redo the assessment after gathering all necessary evidences and after causing proper verification and pass consequential order accordingly after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.Pr.CIT, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The impu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly she passed the impugned assessment order accordingly. 5. All the grounds of appeal are related to initiation of revisionary proceedings by the Ld.Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act. 6. The Ld.AR argued that the assessee had uploaded all the information, details, evidences and documents as called for by the then Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings and also uploaded the details of payments made by the assessee towards purchase of 1/3 share of property in the F.Y.2015-16 and the details of sources into the mail ID of the Ld.Pr.CIT. The assessee had produced the books of account relating to the F.Y.2015-16, relevant to the A.Y.2016-17 before the Ld.AO in which the impugned purchase of immovable property to the extent of 1/3rd sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....while making payment through banking channels, the assessee made deposit in cash of Rs.9.5 lakh on 10.12.2015 in Corporation Bank, Vizianagaram to obtain Demand Draft in favour of the seller. The sources for a sum of Rs.42,95,167/- paid in cash towards the investment ought to have been explained by the assessee. On this aspect, the contention of the assessee is that the cash paid / deposited was out of the balance available in her books, but she had not submitted any evidence to substantiate her claim and the AO has not verified the above details, therefore the Ld.Pr.CIT set aside the orders passed by the AO as deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The contention of the assessee is that the Ld.AO has examine....