TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1049
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is a director. A Survey action u/s 133A of the Act dated 03.03.2017 was carried out in the case of D B Developers Pvt. Ltd., during which it was observed that there were huge cash deposits in the name of the company as well as in the name of its director. Also there were cash deposits in old high denomination currency in the bank account of company and its directors. Since the source of cash deposits could not be satisfactorily explained, the assessee and its director then opted for disclosure under PMGKY, 2016. The details of undisclosed income offered under PMGKY, 2016 are as under: Name of the Assessee Deposit made during period 10.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 D.B. Developers Ltd. 2958000 Prem Gaikwad 599000 Vaibhav Gaikwad 459500 Madhuri Gaikwad 544500 4561000 3. Since the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs. 4,59,500/- being the cash deposit during the demonetization period which has been disclosed under PMGKY, 2016 but has not explained the source of cash of Rs. 3,71,000/- deposited during the period between 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016 and 01.01.2017 to 03.03.2017 and had also not filed its return of income, the Assessing Officer after....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9,03,002/-. Hence the assessee could explain the source of cash deposits of Rs. 49,03,002/-, out of remaining amount of Rs. 50,91,200/-. Hence, Cash deposits of Rs. 1,88,198/- remained explained." 5. It was explained that they have offered Rs. 15,82,500/- under the PMGKY scheme and copy of challan for taxes paid under PMGKY scheme in respect of all three family members were filed. So far as the balance amount of Rs. 50,91,200/- is concerned, the assessee filed various details. The Assessing Officer after considering the explanation given by the assessee accepted the source of cash deposit of Rs. 3,71,000/- in the hands of the present assessee, Rs. 5,44,500/- in the hands of Madhuri Gaikwad but made addition of Rs. 1,88,198/- u/s 69A of the Act in the hands of Prem Dilip Gaikwad by recording as under: "6. Scrutiny proceedings of other family members viz. Madhuri Gaikwad and Prem Gaikwad are also underway. They have explained source of cash deposits in bank accounts generated from cash gifts received on occasion of wedding ceremony of Shri Prem Gaikwad. Still difference amount of Rs. 1,88,198/- is not explained by any member of family. In absence of any reply, the AO add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessee u/s 56(2) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) has not added the same to the total income of the assessee. 04. Thus, the gift claimed to be deposited in the account of the assessee (brother of Shri Prem Gaikwad) is taxable in the hands of the assessee u/s. 56 of the Act as the assessee does not fall within the definition of relative provided u/s. 56(2) of the Act. The AO failed to add the same to the total income of the assessee and the aspect that such gift in the hands of assessee is taxable u/s. 56(2) of the Act, has not been examined by the A.O. 05. In view of the above, it is found that no verification on the aforesaid issues has been done in the assessment proceedings by the AO. As per explanation (2) to section 263(1) of the Act an order without making inquiries or verification which should have been made is deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 06. Considering the above facts of the case it is seen that the AO has not examined and verified the above issues. Therefore, assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 31.03.2022 passed by the AO for A.Y. 2017-18 appears to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eived by his brother which was subsequently given to him. The assessee submitted a fresh affidavit from his brother regarding the same. He, therefore, held that the assessee had not submitted these details before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer also did not carry out proper examination / verification / enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings on these issues of source of cash deposits in his bank account and the applicability of section 56(2) of the Act. Thus, the order passed by the Assessing Officer has become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He accordingly set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer for examining the issue in detail while framing the fresh assessment order. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld PCIT(Central) - Pune erred in initiating proceedings and exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the IT Act and setting aside the order passed by the Ld AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act. 2. The Ld PCIT(Central) - Pune erred in law and in facts in h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat when the assessee has received more than Rs. 50,000/- from the in-laws of Prem Gaikwad who is not a related party, the provisions of section 56(2) of the Act should have been invoked by the Assessing Officer which he failed to do and therefore, the PCIT was fully justified in invoking the revisionary powers conferred upon him u/s 263 of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the grounds raised by the assessee should be dismissed. 11. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. PCIT and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case on the basis of information gathered during the course of survey and post survey enquiries that the assessee has made cash deposits in the bank and had not filed his return of income, reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. The assessee in response to the same filed the return of income declaring the total income of Rs. 180/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits of Rs. 3,71,000/-....