TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... short as Ld. AO) dated 10.12.2019. 2. The facts in brief are that assessee filed return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring income of Rs.13,81,420/- and the case was selected for limited scrutiny on the ground of "large cash deposits in bank account during the year". Accordingly, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee was unable to explain the source of cash deposited during FY 2016-17 in the two bank accounts of ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank Ltd. Ld. AO invoked Section 69A of the Act and made addition of cash deposits to the extent of Rs.3,23,08,300/- with higher tax rates as u/s 115BBE of the Act. 3. However, the Ld. Revisional Authority observed that the deposit in ICICI Bank was taken at Rs.3,00,74,620/- by the Ld. AO while in fact the depo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und that assessee has not submitted details of customers and sub agents who has directly deposited cash in assessee's bank account. In absence of details of customers who has directly deposited cash in bank account, the cash receipts during the year cannot be verified. 9.3 Hence from above mentioned facts it is clear that difference of Rs 4,98,576/- (Rs 3,05,73,196/- - Rs 3,00,74,620/-) as cash receipt deposited in the bank account cannot be verified in absence of complete details. This issue also needs to be examined further. 10 The above fact clearly shows that AO had not made proper enquiry and verification before completion of assessment. The AO has passed the order u/s 144 of the Act without making inquiries or verification which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law , the Ld. PCIT Delhi-12 has erred in partly setting aside the order passed by Ld AO u/s 144 on the issue of difference of Rs 498576/- (30573196-30074620) being cash deposited in the bank account which was not considered in the original assessment. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the Ld. PCIT Delhi 12 has erred in not considering the submissions filed by the assessee and in forming an incorrect opinion without confronting the same and in using the same adversely without providing the reasonable opportunity of defending, which inaction of the Ld PCIT makes the order passed u/s 263 as null and void. 5. That the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udgment has been relied by the Ld. PCIT but the same was rather beneficial to the assessee as neither the order was erroneous nor there was any prejudice to the Revenue and in fact if there was any prejudice then the same was to the assessee as in spite of having explanation of the source of deposits the Ld. AO had added all the cash deposits to the extent of Rs.3.23 crores u/s 69A of the Act. It was submitted that Ld. PCIT has made certain observations in its order with regard to failure of assessee to substantiate the source of deposit and that has now become an arsenal in the hands of Ld. AO to make afresh computation. 9. In support of his contentions Ld. AR also tendered a Paper Book having following judgments: 1. "PCIT 1, New Delhi ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t there is no error in the findings of Ld. PCIT as the assessee cannot dispute the fact that there was under assessment of the income and there was lack of enquiry on the part of Ld. AO in reaching the correct figure required to be added. 11. Giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record and the submissions made it is relevant to observe at the outset that during the hearing and on queries by the Bench, it revealed that the assessee has separately challenged the assessment order dated 10.12.2019 and the appeal is pending before the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal u/s 250 of the Act. It means that as far as the question of facts and law with regard to the extent to which the assessee is able to explain the source of cash deposited, during....