TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 829
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act") by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 with the delay of 69 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay, submitting that he resides in a village, which is remotely located at Korukollu, Krishna District. He is not well educated and his main activity is to act as commission agent in procuring the fish from various farmers and lift such fish and send them to various places. Therefore, his job revolves around various farmers residing in remote villages of Krishna District. He further submitted that since he is not educated, he does not know the provisions of law and hence he is not aware of the proceedings / orders passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act, examined assessment record of the assessee for the A.Y.2017-18 and noticed that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) on 23.12.2019 is prima facie, erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld.Pr.CIT has mentioned that " though the case was selected for complete scrutiny, the Assessing Officer did not verify either the CASS reason in terms of sources of cash deposits and also failed to call for details of decrease in GP / NP of current previous year when compared to preceding previous year. Hence, the assessment completed in this case u/s 143(3) of the Act on estimate basis for the Asst. Year 2017-18 needs to be revised u/s 263 of the I.T. Act." A show cause notice was issued on 09.02.2022 and on receipt of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT is not valid as per the Explanation 2 (a) of Section 263 of the Act since the Assessing Officer has passed the order only after due inquiry and verification. Hence the observation of the Learned PCIT that the order passed by the AO dated 23-12-2019 has been completed without any inquiry is not correct. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.Pr.CIT ought to have appreciated that appellant is depositing the cash sales arised out of the fish trading in the bank account regularly every year which is evident from the returns of income filed for the previous years and also in subsequent years and same were accepted by the revenue. Hence there is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew while completing the Assessment and hence the Assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned PUT is not having jurisdiction to invoke provisions of Section 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961 8. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing. 5. Now the question before us is whether the proceedings initiated u/s 263 is valid in the eyes of law. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the AO has passed assessment order after due enquiries and estimated the profit. Therefore, the order passed by the Ld.PCIT u/s 263 is not valid. He further submitted that the assessee had deposited the cash....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....drawn and paid to fish farmers. Since the fish farmers have no bank account and prefer to receive the sale price in cash, as and when the fish are sold at the tanks to the trader through the assessee. The assessee has not furnished any books of accounts, proof / evidence in the form of bills / vouchers for the total quantity of fish sold to the traders through his mediation during the year to ascertain the actual quantity of fish sold, price per kg. of fish, commission derived etc. The AO issued notices and in response to the said show cause notice, he explained that since the fish is highly perishable commodity, it has to be marketed as quickly as possible and that the commission changes from person to person depending upon the bargain and....