TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 310
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s such as I.T return copy with statement of computation of total income with receipts and payments statement, bank statements, sale deed copy etc., The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) on 11.12.2017 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 11,49,510/- wherein he made addition of Rs. 2,39,000/- on lumpsum basis on account of huge cash transactions done by the assessee. 3. Subsequently, the learned PCIT examined the record and noted that the assessee has purchased 5.39 acres of land for a consideration of Rs. 1,13,00,000 against the market value of Rs. 4,04,25,000/-. The assessee has also paid stamp duty of Rs. 24,25,600/- on the market value of Rs. 4,04,25,000/- itself. Therefore, the difference of Rs. 2,91,25,000/- should have been treated as income from other sources in the hands of the assessee. Since the Assessing Officer has not made this addition or not made any inquiries, the learned PCIT issued a notice u/s. 263 of the Act on 17.01.2020 asking the assessee to explain as to why the order passed by the Assessing Officer on 11.12.2017 should not be revised being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Rejecting the various e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferring to the order of the learned PCIT's order from Para 6 onwards, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned PCIT in the instant case has quoted the order of some other assessee in the impugned order wherein he has discussed regarding the source for cash deposit in excess of turnover at Rs. 89,08,650/- which was not examined. Further interest income of Rs. 54,175/- received from Syndicate Bank was also not examined for which he set aside the order dated 18.4.2017 for the A.Y 2015-16. He submitted that the facts narrated by the PCIT in the concluding para of the order passed u/s. 263 relate to somebody else and do not pertain to the assessee. He submitted that since the learned PCIT has not applied his mind and without considering the facts of the assessee has arrived at a conclusion on the basis of the facts of some other assessee, therefore, the order passed by the learned PCIT should be set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee should be allowed. He also relied on the following decisions: i) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCJ Securities Pvt. Ltd. in W.P (C) 6415/2022 dated 4.5.2022. ii) Hon'ble Bombay High Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee and in a very cryptic order has quoted the facts of some other person and set aside the assessment with a direction to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment denovo and in accordance with law. 9. We find some force in the above argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee. A perusal of the order of the learned PCIT from Para 4 onwards read as under: "4. The assessee was asked vide the show cause notice dated 17.01.2020 mentioned supra to furnish his explanation on 28.01.2020. In response to the above notice the assessee's A.R. Smt. K.A.J. Krishna Kumari appeared and filed written submissions on 27.02.2020. 6. Further, the reading of the assessment order shows that it is a case where assessment has been completed almost without examining anything before accepting certain bank deposits allowable or otherwise. The sources for cash deposits in excess of Instead interest income of Rs. turnover (at Rs. 89,08,650/-) were not examined. 1,58,861/- was added. Further Interest income at Rs. 54,175/- received from the Syndicate Bank is to be brought to the tax. Hence the assessment is said to be assessment made without proper verification of the reaso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer to be erroneous not only when it contains some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact on face of it but also when it is stereo-type order which simply accepts what assessee has stated in his return and fails to make enquiries or examine genuineness of claim which are called for in circumstances of the case" as held in the case of Indu Fine Lands (P) Limited Vs CIT (2014) 45 Taxmann. Com 307 (Hyd)(Trib). 10. For the purposes of invoking the jurisdiction u/s. 263, it is settled law that the revisional authority should apply the tests as to whether such an order contains some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of the fact on the face of it and also whether it is an order wherein the AO simply accepted what the assessee has stated in its return &/or in the other particulars and failed to make examination/verification/enquiries which are called for on the facts and circumstances of the case which he as an investigator of that case was duty bound to do. If we apply above tests to the facts and circumstances of this case and the material available on record, it is clear that the order. passed by the AO u/s. 143(3)) on 18.04.2017 for the A.Y. 2015-16 is erron....