TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 883
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. PCIT erred in holding the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, as erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest of revenue under the provision of section 263 of the Act. 3. At the outset, it was noticed that there was a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee for 282 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition stating that the appeal memo in requisite form in 3 sets was inadvertently sent to the Departmental Representative. As such the appeal was filed within the time specified under the provision of Act, which is evident from the courier receipt available on record. As per the courier receipt, the delivery was made to the office of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed under limited scrutiny on account of large cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. As per the record available with the revenue, there was cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 1.91 crores in the bank account bearing No. 31749236480 maintained with the SBI. However, the assessment was completed after considering the cash deposits during demonetization period at Rs. 11,69,500/- only. As such, the assessment was framed after making addition of Rs. 11,69,500/- vide order dated 23/09/2019. 7. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT found that the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest of revenue on account of cash deposits in bank account of Rs. 1,74,28,150/- which has not been verified during th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourse of assessment proceedings, the assessee has not responded to the notices u/s 142(1) issued by the AO and also no any explanation is available on record regarding the cash deposits made by him in the bank account during the year under consideration. Thus short addition of Rs.2,10,56,119/-(Rs.2,22,25,619/- Rs. 11,69,500/-) was made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits as well as credits remained unexplained and accordingly the same is required to be added u/s 69A of the I.T. Act arid to be taxed as per provision of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act. As requested by the assessee through ITBA on 03.02.2022 for 10 days adjournment, this office has granted adjournment for 13 days and requested to submit the written submission b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the AO during the assessment proceedings has verified deposits of cash in the bank account. The Ld. AR in support of his contention drew our attention to the findings given in the assessment order which is placed on record. Therefore, according to the Ld. AR, the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, cannot be held as erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest of revenue on account of non-verification. 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR contended that the assessee neither cooperated during the assessment proceedings nor in the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. It was also pointed out by the Ld. DR that the case was selected under scrutiny to verify the large cash deposit of Rs. 1.91 crores whereas the AO without verifying the same....