TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 505
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....diction and passing order u/s.263 of the Income-tax Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be called and referred as 'Act'). 3. The relevant facts in this case are that the assessee e-filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.80,000/-. The case was selected under Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for Limited scrutiny for the reason "Large Cash deposits in bank account and the assessee has also purchased / sold one or more properties during the year". During the assessment proceedings, as per the notices served on the assessee u/s.143(2) and 142(1) calling for the information regarding the evidences of the sources of cash deposits and sources of properties purchased/sold and working of capital gain in respect of properties sol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cash deposits were for the sum of Rs.86,19,000/- only as on 02-06-2015 from all sources including agricultural income, advances received and cash deposits. Out of the funds of Rs.86,19,000/- a sum of Rs.2,04,000/- was stated to have been out of own cash balance. However, no supporting documentary evidences such as cash book etc., had been furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the assessee had only a sum of Rs.84,15,000/- with him as on 02-06-2015 from all sources. The new land which the assessee purchased was for a total consideration of Rs.94,80,340/-. The assessee could not explain the source of Rs.10,65,340/-, i.e.( Rs.94,80,340 - Rs.84,15,000). The ld. PCIT further observed that the assessee had claimed huge agricultural land cultivatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for limited scrutiny for the reason that "large cash deposits were made in the bank account of the assessee and that he had purchased/sold one or more properties during the year". In this regard, the ld. AO, while completing the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, issued notices to the assessee u/s.143(2) and 142(1) calling for information with evidences regarding the source of cash deposit, source of property purchased and working of capital gain in respect of the properties sold. In response to these queries, the assessee had submitted online submissions and furnished necessary details as called for by the ld. AO. It was submitted that the assessee belongs to family of traditional farmers and staying with the joint family having only agric....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter of tax under the Act. In this factual analysis, the contentions raised by the ld. PCIT cannot be held to be justified. The ld. PCIT in this case is only adventuring on a roving and phishing enquiry, which is not permissible within the scope and ambit of section 263 of the Act. The AO has completed full inquiry on the subject of the limited scrutiny and passed the assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act. The assessment order cannot be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) has held that "On a bare reading of section 263 of the Act makes it clear that the Commissioner has to be satisfied with twin conditions that the order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see, vis-à-vis the sources of income of the assessee, merely pointing out some discrepancies which is also not coming out from the admitted facts of the case, is nothing but an action that the ld. PCIT resorted to passing order u/s.263 only for the purposes of roving enquiry not permissible within the Act. The Commissioner has no jurisdiction to set-aside the order of assessment to conduct another purposeless enquiry to reach the same result which was already arrived at earlier. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) observed and held that "in the garb of exercising power u/s.263, the Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to start phishing and roving enquiry in ....