TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 492
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment Centre, Delhi u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act on 30-03-2022. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: - 1. The Order passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 263 is bad and illegal. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner erred in not considering the reply filed by the Appellant with respect to the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. 3. The assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 by the Learned Principal Commissioner is erroneous, for the assessment order, against which the PCIT invoked powers u/s. 263, is already pending on appeal filed before the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre and the law does not permit overlapping of jurisdiction. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....06 Lacs but the assessee deposited cash of Rs. 128 Lacs, Accordingly, the case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2021. Since the assessee did not file return of income in response to notice u/s 148, the assessment was completed on best judgment basis u/s 144. The assessee also failed to furnish supporting documents as well as requisite details as called for by Ld. AO. Only partial submissions were made wherein certain discrepancies were found. It also transpired that the assessee was engaged in wholesale and retail trading of Nestle Products and Ujala products. The assessee submitted that the deposits were out of sale proceeds. 3.2 The Ld. AO issued notice u/s 133(6) to the banks and obtained bank account statement which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of stock but leaving the core issue of cash deposits during demonetization which was the primary reason for reopening the assessment. 4.2 The assessee assailed the proposed revision and relied on various case laws governing the revision of the assessment. The same has already been enumerated in the impugned order and not repeated here for the sake of brevity. 4.3 However, rejecting assessee's submissions, Ld. Pr. CIT held that required details of cash deposits were not furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and the issue of cash deposit was not examined by Ld. AO. When an assessment is opened primarily for one reason i.e., cash deposits during demonetization period, by not making any addition on this issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee, Ld. AO chose to make addition on account of trading result and thought it fit not to make any addition on the issue of cash deposit. The assessment was framed on best judgment basis since the assessee failed to file the requisite details. In such a case, the assessment has been made to the best of judgment of Ld. AO and therefore, that judgment of Ld. AO could not be held to be erroneous though it may be prejudicial to revenue. Once the assessment is on best judgment basis, Ld. Pr. CIT could not substitute the judgment of Ld. AO and impose another view on him. 6. The second pertinent fact is that the assessee has assailed the reassessment proceedings before first appellate authority which was pending for adjudication at the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings has assigned certain reasons for coming to a conclusion that the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 54F and not under Section 54 of the Act. This reason assigned by the Assessing Officer has been found by us to show due application of mind. As observed, we cannot expect an Assessing Officer to write a judgment. In such circumstances, the view taken by the Commissioner in his order under Section 263 of the Act has to be termed as a change of opinion, or in other words, the Assessing Officer adopted one of the two views possible and in such circumstances, it cannot be stated that the order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as well as erroneous. For the purpose of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the....