TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 1007
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring the year. Accordingly the Assessing officer issued notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) fixing the case for hearing on various dates. On filing replies by the assessee from time to time, the assessment was completed accepting the Return of Income of Rs. 2,34,180/- without making any additions or deletions vide order dated 28.11.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 2.1. On examination of records by Ld. PCIT regarding the cash deposits of Rs. 12,00,000/- in saving bank account. The assessee claimed that it engaged in money lending business which is seasonal and assessee gives loan to the Villagers/agriculturists in crop sowing season and the loan are repaid by them after harvesting time. The assessee claimed to have maintained regular books of account for money lending business and there is a discrepancies in the interest of Rs. 2,45,118/- under money lending business. Thus the source of deposit in the savings bank account remained unproved. The assessee filed its Return of Income in ITR-1 which is meant for income from Pension/Salary, Income from one House Property, but a person engaged in any business cannot file the return in form ITR-1. This clearly proves that the assessee is not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, as to how such huge amount of cash is deposited in bank account, while the withdrawals were nominal. Similarly, the assessee has never declared agriculture income during the year under consideration nor in the earlier returns, how the sale of land is exempt u/s. 2(14) of the Act, which was not verified by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Thus invoking Explanation 2 of Section 263(1) of the Act namely (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing and relief without inquiring into the claim. 2.5. The Ld. PCIT relying upon various case laws and held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer as an erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. As the A.O. has failed to conduct enquiries with regard to the various issues and bring to tax the correct amount. Therefore the said assessment order is set aside with a direction to examine the issue in detail by giving proper opportunity to the assessee. 3. Aggrieved against the Revision order, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. That on the facts a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....receding previous year) withdrawals Date Amount Date Amount 07/04/17 32000 17/10/15 300000 29/03/16 600000 07/11/15 274000 08/12/15 100000 02/01/16 700000 0 0 632000 1374000 Above 2 years' cash deposits figures reveal the following bare facts- The assessee had been regular and frequent in depositing cash in bank. His money lending work is almost seasonal, that to say, money is distributed in crop seasons and returned back after sale of crops by the villagers/ agriculturists. The assessee has to keep sufficient cash balance with it during crop-sowing seasons. He deposited the excess cash than required with the bank. The cash so deposited was out of sufficient cash balance available in the Cash Book. The Cash during round the year comes in and goes out in interest Business, whose details are kept in the regular books of account like girvi bahi, girvi ledger etc. These few facts of the business-style justifies the cash deposits in the banks. Further during demonation period, a reasonable cash was deposited. ................. 6. As regard Sale/Transfer of Property,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iated manner without going into merits of the case. Thus the conclusion reached by ld. PCIT on the assessment order being erroneous is based on the same set of documents which have been duly considered by the Ld. A.O. while framing the assessment order. Thus PCIT is taking a different view, what was taken by the Assessing Officer, cannot be a good ground for invoking the Revision proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act and therefore requested to quash the Revision order. 4. Per contra, the Ld. CIT-DR Shri P.K. Mishra appearing for the Revenue submitted that the original assessment was taken up for scrutiny assessment only for limited scrutiny namely to verify transfer of property reported in SFT but capital gains is not declared in Return of Income and verify the large cash deposits in the bank account by the assessee. 4.1. On perusal of the assessment order as well as the 142(1) notices, the Assessing Officer has not made proper and necessary enquiry on the sale of agriculture lands and whether the assessee has returned any agricultural income in the preceding two assessment years from the above lands by the assessee. The Assessing Officer also has not verified why the assessee filed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with the observations that the Assessing Officer did not make any proper inquiry while making the assessment and accepting the explanation of the assessee(s) insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned. On that basis the Commissioner of Income Tax had, after setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer, simply directed the Assessing Officer to carry thorough and detailed inquiry. It is this order which is upheld by the High Court. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 5.2. Further, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nagal Garment Industries (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 4 (M.P.) has upheld the findings of the Tribunal as follows: "8. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman.com 66, the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 and CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 69 ta....