TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 700
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 662 days in filing the appeal due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 on 28.03.2017 admitting a total income of Rs..15,000/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act dated 20.04.2017 by CPC, Bangalore. Subsequently, the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 20.09.2017 and duly served on the assessee on 22.09.2017. As there was no response to the above notice, a notice under sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 31.07.2019 as well as 31.08.23019 along with copies monthly Tamilnadu VAT returns, consolidated statement of sales and bank pass books in support of assessee's claim. After considering the explanations of the assessee, the ld. PCIT was of the opinion that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2017 and directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment after making necessary enquiries and verification. 6. On being aggrieved against the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3CD on 29.12.2017. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has called for the explanation from the assessee for the cash deposit of Rs..4,41,28,135/-. Since the assessee has not furnished details for the cash deposit, after following due procedure, the Assessing Officer estimated the net profit at 8% of the total cash deposits and brought to tax, against which, the assessee preferred further appeal before the first appellate authority. However, subsequently, the ld. PCIT issued notice under section 263 of the Act calling for explanation towards cash deposit of Rs..8,52,06,588/- during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to the assessment year 2015-16. Against the notice under section 263 of the Act, the assessee h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal has observed and held as under: "7. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Admitted facts are that the assessee's income declared from agricultural activities at Rs. 81.85 Lakhs is assessed by Assessing Officer as unexplained income. Admittedly this addition of agricultural income as unexplained income is a matter is being contested before CIT(A) in Appeal No. 10976/2019-20 filed on 31.01.2020. We noted that this issue has been dealt by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip (Supra) wherein Hon'ble Madras High Court had dealt with exactly identical situation where the addition was subject matter of appeal before CIT(A) was held to be covered by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ile completing the reassessment proceedings has assigned certain reasons for coming to a conclusion that the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 54F and not under Section 54 of the Act. This reason assigned by the Assessing Officer has been found by us to show due application of mind. As observed, we cannot expect an Assessing Officer to write a judgment. In such circumstances, the view taken by the Commissioner in his order under Section 263 of the Act has to be termed as a change of opinion, or in other words, the Assessing Officer adopted one of the two views possible and in such circumstances, it cannot be stated that the order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as well as erroneous. For the purpose of exercise o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al was decided by CIT (A) on 5.6.2013. Thus, the order passed by the ITAT does not suffer from any irregularity and needs no interference." 9. In view of the above facts situation that the addition of agricultural income by the AO as unexplained income is contested before the CIT(A) by the assessee and once this being contested before CIT(A), in view of the provisions of clause (c) of Explanation (1) to section 263 of the Act, the doctrine of merger will apply and the PCIT cannot take any cognizance of the matter while adjudicating u/s. 263 of the Act. Even otherwise also the CIT(A)'s powers are co-terminus with those of the AO and he can do what the AO could do and can also direct the later to do what the later failed to do on tha....