TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 95
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts and set off of Rs. 98,09,203/- while computing addition u/s. 69A requires verification and inquiry even though necessary verification and inquiries had already been made by the AO while completing assessment. 4. The ld. Pr. CIT erred on facts and in law in setting aside the order of the AO without justifiable reasons. 3. A perusal of order of the ld. Pr. CIT reveals that in the present case, the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was finalized after making addition on account of unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 116,13,90,797/-. The ld. Pr. CIT found this assessment order to be erroneous causing prejudice to the Revenue for the reason that i) While the assessee had admitted to cash deposits made during the year of Rs. 117.13 crores, the AO while finalizing the assessment had considered cash deposits of Rs. 117.12 crores; ii) The AO had accepted the source of cash deposits out of the total cash deposits so made by the assessee of Rs. 117.12/117.13 crores, Rs. 98,09,203/- allegedly sourced from one person Shri Chirag Tiger on the basis of confirmation of transaction, furnishing of his copy of return of income, copy of PAN, copy of licence and ledger account for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh deposits amounting to Rs. 117,12,00,000/- as the base amount for making addition u/s. 69A of the Act instead of the cash deposits amounting to Rs. 117,13,00,000/- as admitted by you vide your letter dated 16/11/2019 submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, it is noticed that while making addition u/s. 69A of the IT. Act on account of unexplained cash deposits, the Assessing Officer has reduced an amount of Rs. 98,09,203/- from the cash deposits stating that one of the persons Shri Chirag Tiger to whom summons u/s. 131 of the IT. Act was issued has confirmed the transactions and also furnished his copy of his return of income, copy of PAN card, copy of license and ledger account for the year under consideration. However, on verification of the case records, it is noticed that no such details are available in the case records for the A.Y. 2017-18. In view of the above facts, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment without verification/inquiry on the above issues which should have been made during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the IT. Act passed by the Assessing Officer in your ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce in cash deposits of Rs. 1,00,000/- as per the details of cash deposits mentioned in the letter dated 16/11/2019 submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 69A of the Act, the assessee stated that while computing the quantum of cash deposits in the bank accounts being sought for by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has committed computational mistakes which led to inflated reporting of amount of cash deposits in the bank accounts. Further, in respect of the set off of the amount of Rs. 98,09,203/- given by the Assessing Officer while computing the quantum of addition u/s. 69A of the IT. Act, the assessee contended that necessary details have been submitted before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. However, on perusal of the assessment records, it is observed that no such details are available. Therefore, considering the submission now made by the assessee, the above issues requires verification and inquiries. Hence, it is apparent from record that the Assessing Officer has not verified or inquired about these two issues while finalizing the amassment u/s; 143(3) of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the revisionary proceedings and again without dealing with these documents, he had gone on to hold the order passed by the AO as erroneous, finding these evidences not on record in the assessment file. His contention, therefore, was that though the assessee had demonstrated to the ld. Pr. CIT that there were no error in the order of the AO, and had substantiated the same also, the ld. Pr. CIT without even considering the explanation or making any further inquires on the evidences filed by the assessee had gone on to hold the assessment order as erroneous, which was against the provision of law as laid under section 263 of the Act itself. The Ld. DR however supported the order of the Ld. PCIT. 7. We have considered the contentions of the ld. counsel for the assessee, and have also gone through the order of the Ld. PCIT. We find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the finding of error by the Ld. PCIT in the order of the AO was in total disregard of the explanation and evidences filed by the assessee before him and therefore in gross violation of the provisions of section 263 of the Act. The fact, as noted above, are that the assessment order was found....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the interests of the revenue. I submit that while computing the quantum of cash deposits in the bank accounts being sought for by the Assessing Officer, your assessee committed computational mistakes which led to inflated reporting of amount of cash deposits in the bank accounts. The quantum of cash receipts/cash deposits in the bank accounts is significantly less which is evident from the cash book copy of which was also furnished in the course of assessment proceedings. I have summarised all cash transactions duly recorded in the cash book in excel sheet for immediate reference. The total of cash book itself stands at Rs. 113,72,24,095.50 including opening balance of Rs. 11,531.50. Copy of cash book extract converted into excel sheet is annexed as Annexure-B for immediate reference and records. I, therefore, submit that your assessee has already been over assessed significantly while making assessment and which is being contested before the Ld. CIT(A) My way of appeal against the assessment order so passed. I, therefore, submit that the assessment order so passed is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. 9. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r assessee in no way is associated in such process of maintenance. Assessee cannot be charged/fasten with the liability for the negligence of the Assessing Officer or his subordinate staff in maintenance of relevant records. Such lapse on their part cannot be held to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and that too by calling upon the assessee as to why he should not be burdened/fasten with the liability which otherwise ought not to have been/could be fasten on him merely because assessment records/files have not been properly kept and maintained by the Assessing Officer and his subordinate staff. To my mind, such an inference is outside the scope of revision u/s. 263 of the Act. Lack of enquiry/no enquiry is different from inadequate enquiry and if is only in case of no enquiry by the AO, Pr. CIT/CIT can exercise jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and not in case where the AO has made enquiries as seems appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case as held by Delhi Tribunal in the case of Braham Dev Gupta v. PCIT - [2017] 88 taxmann.com 831 and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT. v, Nirav Modi - [2016] 71 taxmann.com 272 (Bombay) [SLP o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or] Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the [Assessing] Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, [including,- 11. In the facts of the present case, despite the assessee explaining to the ld. Pr. CIT that there were no errors in the order of the AO in accepting the cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee at Rs. 117.12 crores, and also in accepting source of cash deposits Rs. 98,09,203/-, substantiated with evidences also, the ld. Pr. CIT has not cared to even consider this contention and explanation of the assessee. The Ld. PCIT has given no finding as to why the assessment order was in error on the issue of cash deposit short considered by the AO. And with respect to the error relating to the issue of acceptance of so....