TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 565
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....when the assessment has already been concluded by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.sl47 of the Act after seeking explanations and making all the enquiries necessary for completion of assessment reopened u/s 148 of the Act for specific issue of cash deposit of Rs. 1,05,75,000/- in Punjab Gramin Bank, Manakdheri and Punjab National Bank, Muradpur. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, proceedings initiated u/s 263 of the Act on the basis of audit objection and consequent order passed u/s 263 of the Act is opposed to judgment of Honorable Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (2008) 296 ITR 0238 wherein it has been held that mere audit objection, and merely because a different view can be taken are not enough to hold that the order of the AO is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 4. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-1 ('Ld. CIT') has grossly erred in setting aside the assessment framed with the directions to pass fresh order after making necessary enquiries/investigations. Non issuance of spe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....andhar received by assessee on 01.04.2021. 2. That appeal against order u/s 263 of the Act was required to be filed on or before. 02.06.2021 but is being sent through speed post on 20.08.2022 which is expected to be received in ITAT office on or before resulting in delay of 448 days. 3. That assessee is residing in a village Dhamian Khurd PO Sirhala Mundian Hoshiarpur alongwith her minor school going son and no other member of the family is residing with the assessee. Husband of assessee is settled abroad. Assessee has studied upto 8th standard only. Assessee has no source of income except agriculture income. During the year under consideration, husband of assessee sold agriculture land and proceeds received cash were deposited in the joint saving bank of assessee jointly maintained with her husband. 4. That proceedings u/s 148 of the Act were initiated by Income Tax Officer, Hoshiarpur and assessee contacted nearby Chartered Accountant Sachin Puri having office in village Tanda. Sachin Puri obtained desired information and assessment proceedings were concluded by Income Tax Officer Dasuya. 5. That proceedings u/s 263 of the Act were initiated by Pr. CIT-l, Jalandhar an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....delay of 448 days in filing the appeal before Honorable Bench may kindly be condoned and the matter may kindly be heard on its merit in the interest of justice." 3.1 The relevant para 5, of the Affidavit of Smt. Rajinder Kaur w/o Sh. Ravinder Singh dated 20th Aug., 2022 reads as under: "5. That proceedings u/s 263 of the Act were initiated by Pr. CIT-1, Jalandhar and were attended by Sachin Puri. Order u/s 263 of the Act was received wherein Ld. Pr. CIT-1, Jalandhar has directed "Therefore, the said order passed is set aside to this extent to the file of the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after making necessary enquiries/investigations in the light of the discussions made above and after giving due opportunity to the assessee of being heard." Sh. Sachin Puri CA on receipt of order u/s 263 of the Act guided that appeal will be filed when Assessing Officer complete that assessment." 3.2 The Ld. AR placed reliance on the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court vide para 10, 26 and 27 from pg. 3 and 13 is as under: "10. That under similar circumstances, Honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana condoned delay of 154 days in the case of THUNUGUNTLA JAGAN MOHAN RAO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of Collector, Land Acquisition & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 62 CTR (SC) (Syn) 23 : 1987 (28) ELT 185 (SC), the Supreme Court held that "the legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting s. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Court". The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek the remedy promptly. The Hon'ble Court further observed that refusal to condone the delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil No. 12980 of 1986, decided on 19th Feb., 1987, in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erroneous, in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue and take suitable remedial action, as per section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by observing as under: "The perusal of assessment record in the above mentioned case for the assessment year 2011-12 shows that the assessment order had been framed on 10.12.2018 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter refer to as The Act'). The examination of the assessment order and the facts on record, show certain discrepancies in the assessment order issued. A show cause notice was therefore issued to the assessee under section 263 of the Act, vide letter No.3140 dated 16.03.2021 as follows:- Please refer to the Assessment order in your case framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act on 10.12.2018 at an income of Rs. NIL-. The perusal of the assessment order and on examination of record for the asstt. year 2011-12, the following points have been noticed:- "The proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Asstt. Year: 2011- 12 were initiated in your case as you did not file any information with respect to the source of cash deposited by you at Rs.78,00,000/-, Rs.27,75,000/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Assessing Officer is held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The case is, therefore, set aside to the file of the A.O. for fresh assessment on the above mentioned issue." 5. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-1 ('Ld. CIT') has grossly erred in law in passing order u/s 263 of the Act, as the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 10.12.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of revenue; that the assessment has already been framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.sl47 of the Act after seeking explanations and making all the enquiries necessary for completion of assessment reopened u/s 148 of the Act for specific issue of cash deposit of Rs. 1,05,75,000/- in Punjab Gramin Bank, Manakdheri and Punjab National Bank, Muradpur. 5.1 The Ld. AR argued that the proceedings were initiated u/s 263 of the Act on the basis of audit objection and consequent order passed u/s 263 of the Act is opposed to judgment of Honorable Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of "COMMISSIONER OF INC....