TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear 2015-16 was filed on 28.09.2015 disclosing total income of Rs.19,69,750/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Satara Circle, Satara ('the Assessing Officer') vide order dated 27.09.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') at a total income of Rs.21,99,750/- after making disallowance of Rs.2,30,000/- on account of expenditure incurred under the head "Transport & Hamali expenses, Repairs and Maintenance expenses". The reasons for selecting the case for scrutiny assessment is on account of : (i) Large cash deposits in savings bank accounts. (ii) Mismatch in sales turnover reported in Audit Report and ITR. 3. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT, on revi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....crutiny for the purpose of verification of cash deposits, the question of verification of other items does not arise. Therefore, the revision order passed u/s 263 by the ld. PCIT was not maintainable. However, the ld. PCIT rejecting the said contention of the appellant held that non-verification of those items rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and, accordingly, set aside the assessment order with a direction to re-do the assessment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of revision passed u/s 263, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. It is submitted that when the assessment was selected for scrutiny under limi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent order cannot be termed as an "erroneous". 9. Now, we proceed to examine the facts of the present case, whether the Assessing Officer had examined the items which were subject matter of revision during the course of original assessment proceedings. We had also gone through the assessment order passed consequent to the order u/s 263, wherein, the Assessing Officer only made addition in respect of cash deposits of Rs.1,04,50,000/-, as the appellant had failed to offer any explanation in support of the sources for cash deposits, despite reasonable opportunity to the appellant. Moreover, the appellant also could not demonstrate before us that this issue was examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and to....