TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 706
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t order passed u/s.143(3) dated 30.12.2019, is without jurisdiction, illegal, bad-in-law and void ab initio on account of several reasons, more particularly, due to following:- (a) The Learned PCIT-1, Raipur has erred in drawing the inference that the sales of the assessee was Rs. 4,24,67,351/- and not Rs. 2,18,31,547/- merely on the basis of erroneous table drawn by the Learned A.O in the assessment Order disregarding the regular books of accounts of the assessee as well as VAT returns filed by the assessee and therefore, the inference drawn is contrary to the records which is unsustainable and bad- in-law. (b) The Learned PCIT-1, Raipur has erred in drawing the inference based on perusal of assessment order instead of drawing the inference based on the records in the assessment folder. (c) The Learned PCIT-1, Raipur has erred in drawing the inference without conducting enquiry or verification which he ought to have made. (d) The Learned PCIT-1, Raipur has erred in holding the assessment order to be erroneous stating that this is the case of the Learned A.O conducting inadequate enquiries and further erred in invoking Explanation-2 introduced in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ased on the aforesaid facts, the Pr. CIT held a conviction that there was suppression of sales amounting to Rs. 2,06,35,804/- [ Rs. 4,24,67,351/- (- ) Rs. 2,18,31,547/-]. The Pr. CIT taking cognizance of the fact that the A.O while framing assessment had recharacterized cash deposit of Rs. 33 lacs as was disclosed by the assessee firm as sale proceeds and treated the same as its income from unexplained sources, thus, scaled down the figure of suppressed sales to Rs. 1,73,35,804/-[ Rs. 2,06,35,804/- (-) Rs. 33,00,000/-]. Also, the Pr. CIT by applying the disclosed GP rate of 20.50 % of the assessee firm, therein, determined its suppressed profit at Rs. 35,53,840/-. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT on the basis of his aforesaid observations vide "Show Cause Notice" (SCN) dated 24.01.2022 called upon the assessee firm to explain as to why the order passed by the A.O being erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue may not be revised u/s. 263 of the Act. As the reply filed by the assessee did not find favour with the Pr. CIT, therefore, he vide his order passed u/s. 263 of the Act dated 30.03.2022 set-aside the assessment order passed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 9. We have thoughtfully considered the facts involved in the present case in the backdrop of the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, as well as considered the orders of the lower authorities a/w. material available on record. Before proceeding any further, the "tabulation" of the sales by the A.O in the assessment order which as stated by him was worked out on the basis of "cash book" of the assessee firm is culled out as under: 10. As observed by the Pr. CIT, and rightly so, the A.O in the assessment order had categorically observed that the total sales of the assessee firm worked out at Rs. 4,24,67,351/-, viz. (i) sales through cheque payments: Rs. 2,33,09,609/-; and (ii) cash sales (including card payments) : Rs. 1,91,57,742/-. In fact, the A.O had given bifurcated details of the aforesaid cash/cheque sales, which details as stated by him were compiled on the basis of "cash book" of the assessee firm that was produced before him. Apart from that, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that based on the aforesaid bifurcat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er disputed by the assessee firm in the course of the assessment proceedings nor carried any further in appeal. Interestingly, we find that the assessee firm even after the framing of the assessment by the A.O vide order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2019, had at no stage filed any application u/s. 154 of the Act seeking rectification of the alleged wrong figures of monthly sales recorded by the A.O in the "chart" culled out in the assessment order. It is only when the Pr. CIT taking cognizance of the aforesaid serious infirmity had called upon the assessee to show cause as to why the order passed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) dated 30.12.2019 may not in light of the aforesaid admitted mistake be revised u/s. 263 of the Act that the assessee firm had for the first time claimed that the said figures of monthly sales were incorrect. 12. Be that as it may, in our considered view, now when the A.O had himself in the assessment order observed that the aggregate sales of the assessee firm for the year under consideration (as per the "chart") worked out at Rs. 4,24,67,351/-, therefore, the Pr. CIT remained well within his jurisdiction to set-aside the said assessment order with a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that as the A.O while framing the assessment had lost sight of the aggregate figure of sales of Rs. 4,24,67,351/- (supra) as is clearly discernible from the "chart" forming part of the assessment order, therefore, the Pr. CIT had rightly assumed jurisdiction as per the "Explanation 2" to Section 263 of the Act, as per which, he remains well within his power to revise the order passed by the A.O if in his opinion, the order was passed by the A.O without making enquiries or verification which should have been made. In our view, the A.O based on the figure of aggregate sales of Rs. 4,24,67,351/- (supra) ought to have carried out necessary enquiries and verification as regards the aggregate sales that were disclosed by the assessee firm as against that gathered by him on the basis of its "cash book" for the year under consideration. 15. We, thus, in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations, being of the view that the Pr. CIT had rightly assumed jurisdiction as per "Explanation 2" to Section 263 of the Act, therefore, uphold his order. Thus, the Grounds of appeal No. 1 to 5 raised by the assessee are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 16. In the result, the appea....