TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 1292
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in setting aside the impugned reassessment order dated 06-08- 2019 and directing the assessing officer to pass an order, in accordance with law and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice and more particularly when all the necessary details/information/evidences were examined at the time of reassessment proceedings with regard to cash deposit. 3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of ld. Pr.CIT in passing the impugned order U/S 263 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and is in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 which is bad in law inter alia for this reason that the reassessment order passed u/s 1471143(3) dated 06.08.2019 which is sought to be revised u/s 263 itself was invalid inter alia on various grounds. as mentioned below and thus proceedings initiated u/s 263 against the invalid reassessment order is clearly bad in law. (a) That assumption of jurisdiction uls 147 is itself is bad in l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Karnal & Rs. 51,50,0001- in saving bank account maintained with State Bank of Patiala, Karnal and had received interest income at Rs. 7,7501- during the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to AY. 2012-13 but he did not file the return of income for the period 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13. 3. From the perusal of the ITS details, during the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to A.Y.2012-13 it reveals that the assessee had made cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 72,00,0001- in his saving bank accounts and received interest at Rs. 7,7501- as per 26AS during the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to AY. 2012-13. 4. After receiving the information that cash of Rs. 72,00,0001- was deposited in savings bank accounts and interest received at Rs 7,7501-during the. F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13 but return of income had not been filed by the assessee for the relevant period, case being worth investigation, approval was obtained uls 133(6) of IT Act, 1961 from the competent authority i.e. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal for further processing of the information. After getting the approval from the Worthy Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal u/s 133(6)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e total income of the assessee had exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax as discussed in paragraph above and the assessee was assessable under the Act. In view of the above, the provisions .of clause (a) of Explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. Hence necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 has been obtained separately from Principal Commissioner of income Tax as per provisions of section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 9. Reasons for reopening the assessment are limited to the verification of the source of cash deposited in the Savings Bank account and interest earned on savings account. We find that while scrutinizing the return of income, during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer considered the reply of the assessee in respect of source of cash deposited in the Savings Bank account and after thorough scrutiny the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uestion of law: "Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the CIT had wrongly invoked the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act." 18. The Hon'ble High Court, on facts similar to the facts of the appeal under consideration, held as under: "9. One of the contentions, which has been accepted by the tribunal is that the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be regarded as erroneous even if the Assessing Officer had failed to carry out necessary verification and required enquiries in respect of the share application money, as no addition has been made on account of the reasons for reopening, which were recorded before issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act. It has been held that the Assessing Officer could not have made an addition on account of share application money as no addition has been made on account of FDRs of Rs. 20 lacs. The tribunal has noticed and recorded that in the reasons for reopening it was mentioned that the assessee had made investment in form of FDRs of Rs. 20 lacs but in the assessment order passed under Section 147/143(3) of the Act it has been held that the respondent assessee had been able to show and establish the genuinen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, if in the course of proceedings under section 147, the Assessing Officer were to come to the conclusion, that any income chargeable to tax, which, according to his 'reason to believe', had escaped assessment for any assessment year, did not escape assessment, then, the mere fact that the Assessing Officer entertained a reason to believe, albeit even a genuine reason to believe, would not continue to vest him with the jurisdiction, to subject to tax, any other income, chargeable to tax, which the Assessing Officer may find to have escaped assessment, and which may come to his notice subsequently, in the course of proceedings under section 147." 12. The Division Bench in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (supra)considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of V. Jagmohan Rao versus CIT and EPT, (1970) 75 ITR 373(SC) and CIT versus Sun Engineering Works Private Limited, (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) and has then elucidated: "18. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Limited [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom). We may also note that the heading of section 147 is "income es....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of club fees, gifts and presents, etc., but the same having not been done, the Assessing Officer proceeded to reduce the claim of deduction under sections 80HH and 80- I which as per our discussion was not permissible. Had the Assessing Officer proceeded to make disallowance in respect of the items of club fees, gifts and presents, etc., then in view of our discussion as above, he would have been justified as per Explanation 3 to reduce the claim of deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I as well." 13. On the second aspect raised by the Commissioner of Income Tax with regard to the Assessing Officer accepting the loss return of Rs. 1,02,756/-, we are of the view that the same did not require exercise of revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act. The observations of the Assessing Officer were only to the extent of stating that he had accepted the return. Benefit of carry forward of loss can be claimed in case a return is filed under Section 139(1). It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee had tried to claim benefit of carry forward of loss on the basis of the order passed under Section 147/143(3) of the Act. 14. For exercise of power under Section 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs.86,343/-+Rs.4,12,500/-Agriculture Income under 1.T. Act, 1961 along with computation of income. The assessee is deriving income from agricultural activities. Accordingly notice u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the 1.T. Act, 1961 was issued for compliance. Regarding source of cash deposit, necessary documents have been examined, perused and placed on record. Keeping in view the reply and documents submitted by the assessee, the returned income shown at Rs.86,343/-+Rs.4.12,500/-Agriculture Income is accepted. Document 2 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PCIT, Rohtak To, PARAMJIT SINGH DEERA GURU NANAK PURA, PINGLI ROAD KARNAL 132001, Haryana India 3076 29.10.2021 PAN/TAN: AY: DIN & Notice No: EBGPS9938N 2012-13 ITBA/REVIF/REV1/2021- 22/1036639016(1) NOTICE FOR THE HEARING 53 Dated: 29/10/2021 Mis/Mr/Ms Subject: Notice for Hearing in respect of Revision proceedings u/s 263 of the THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961-Assessment Year 2012-13. In this regard, a hearing in the matter is fixed on 10/11/2021 at 11:00 AM. You are....