TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 1408
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried at the business premises of the assessee on 17.08.2016. During the survey action, the assessee surrendered an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rs. 40,00,000/- on account of excess stock and Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of excess cash). The said surrender was made by the assessee in order to cover up the discrepancies as encountered during the course of survey and only in order to buy peace of mind. Thereafter, the assessee credited the amount surrendered of Rs. 50,00,000/- during the course of survey in the profit and loss account prepared for the FY 2016-17 and declared a net profit of Rs 57,16,416/- and thereafter, filed his return of income on 31.10.2017 at returned income of Rs. 56,25,630/-. 3.1 It was submitted that thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for compulsory manual scrutiny and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 20.09.2018 was issued to the assessee. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed his detailed reply on 09.10.2019. Thereafter, various notices were issued during the course of assessment proceedings and the assessee duly replied to all the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. 3.2 It was submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee was not considered and order u/s 263 of the Act dated 17.03.2022 was passed wherein the matter was set-aside to the file of the AO. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 4. In the aforesaid factual background, the Ld. AR submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for compulsory scrutiny only on the issue of the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- surrendered during the course of survey action on 17.08.2016. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO vide specific questionnaire dated 11.12.2019 has duly asked the assessee about the amount surrendered during the course of survey action. Thereafter, the assessee replied to the specific questionnaire of the Ld. AO and the Ld. AO after taking cognizance of all the replies file by the assessee and after taking a conscious decision assessed the total income of the assessee at the returned income and accepted the said surrendered amount as business income of the assessee. Hence, it is submitted that the AO took a possible view on the taxability of income surrendered by the assessee and accepted the sum surrendered as part of business income of the assessee vide his assessment order dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e AO during the course of assessment proceedings itself and hence, there is no new issue pointed out by the ld PCIT during the revision proceedings u/s 263 and therefore, the revision proceedings u/s 263 are bad in law and deserves to be quashed and reliance has been placed on the following judgments: * Narain Singla vs. PCIT ITA no. 427/CHD/2015 * CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Del HC) * CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing And Advertising Cor. Ltd. 341 ITR 180 * Loil Continental Foods Ltd. vs. PCIT in ITA No. 577/CHD/2017 * CIT vs. Late. Shri Vijay Kumar Koganti 195 DTR 428 (Madras HC) * Shri Varinder Kumar Gupta vs. ITO in ITA No. 754/Chd/2018 * Shri Hakam Singh vs. PCIT in ITA No. 597/Chd/2019 * Harampal Contractor Hot Mix Plant vs. PCIT in ITA No. 211/Asr/2017 * Smt. Savita Goyal vs. ITO, Khanna in ITA No. 438/Chd/2007 * Durga Dass Surender Kumar and others in ITA No. 397 & 401/CHD/2022. 4.5 It was further submitted that survey was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 17.08.2016 i.e. much before the date of announcement of demonetization by the Government on 08.11.2016 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....diction. 18. Considering the facts of the case in hand, in totality, in light of judicial decisions discussed here in above, we set aside the order of the PCIT and restore that of the Assessing Officer dated 02.10.2019 framed under section 143(3) of the Act. 4.6 It was further submitted that during the course of survey action at the business premises of the assessee on 17.08.2016 as well as during the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO has not passed any adverse opinion with respect to any other source of income of the assessee. Hence, the business income is the only source of income of the assessee. And, hence, all the income earned by the assessee is only on account of such business and therefore, needs to be taxed under the business head only. Thus, the Ld. AO was fully conscious about the facts and circumstances of the case of the assessee as well as fully aware about the provision of Section 115BBE but still, he has taken a possible view of charging the surrendered income at normal rate of tax and which is very much correct and reliance was placed on the decision in case of M/s. Arora Alloys vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1481/CHD/2017 wherein the Chandigarh Bench h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ness income of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO is directed to tax the assessee on the surrendered income at normal rates as applicable to the business income. It is made clear that my above findings are given in view of the peculiar facts of this case and the same will not hold any binding precedent." 4.8 Further, with regard to the applicability of explanation 2 to section 263(1) of the Act, it was submitted that the AO has made all the requisite enquiries and has verified all the facts and circumstances of the case of the assessee which is evident from the assessment order itself. The Ld. AO has also issued a specific questionnaire wherein, all the details/ explanations pertaining to the amount surrendered during the course of survey has been required and the assessee has duly replied to the said questionnaire. Hence, the case of the assessee is not at all covered under the provisions of explanation 2 to section 263(1) particularly when all the enquiries and verification stands made by the Assessing Officer during the course of original assessment proceedings and has made a conscious order u/s 143(3) of the Act after taking cognizance of all the details/ information availabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urse of survey, the assessee had surrendered an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- which is in the nature of undisclosed cash and undisclosed stock which were not accounted for in the books of accounts. It was submitted that assessee in his return of income has shown the surrendered income as business income and has paid taxes as per normal slab rate. It was submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to submit any explanation for showing the surrendered income as normal business income. It was submitted that the amount so surrendered represent the undisclosed income of the assessee which would have never come to light had there been no survey action under section 133A of the Act and the same could not be treated as normal business income and have to be considered as deemed income and the tax rate @ 77.25% should have been applied as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act in terms of amendment to Section 115BBE by taxation laws 2nd Amendment Act, 2016. It was accordingly submitted that in this case, the AO should have considered the amount so surrendered as deemed income and the tax should have been charged under section 115BBE of the Act. 5.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as to why the tax have not been paid as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. Basis the above, it was stated by the Ld. Pr. CIT that the assessment seems to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 8. We therefore find that the show cause U/S 263 has been issued for the reason that there was a survey operation at the business premises of the assessee and assessee has offered a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- during the course of survey and since the assessee has paid taxes thereon at normal rate of tax and has not paid taxes as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act, the Ld. Pr. CIT deemed it appropriate to invoke his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. In our view, the very basis of invocation of jurisdiction under section 263 suffers from serious fallacies in the sense that the unexplained income found and surrendered during the course of survey proceedings have been sought to be brought to tax straightway under section 115BBE of the Act. And if we look at the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act, it provides that where the total income of the assessee includes any income refer to in section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D which is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned stock covered u/s section 68/69/69A/69B/ 69C of the Act and the same is therefore liable to be taxed u/s 60% u/s 115BBE which we find is again mere repetition of the show-cause notice instead of pointing out how the deeming provisions are attracted in the instant case. There is no findings recorded by the Ld. Pr. CIT as to whether any explanation was called for from the assessee in terms of these undisclosed transactions either during the course of survey proceedings or during the course of assessment proceedings and how the explanation so offered was not found acceptable to the Ld. Pr. CIT. As we have held in case of Gandhi Ram Vs. Pr. CIT(supra), the Ld. Pr. CIT has to record specific findings as to the applicability of the relevant deeming provision and how the explanation called for and filed by the assessee is not acceptable in the facts of the present case and which is clearly absent in the instant case. There is no inquiry or investigation which has been conducted by the Ld. Pr. CIT and there is no positive evidence brought on record as to why the deeming provision read with section 115BBE of the Act are applicable in the instant case. Therefore in absence of clear cut f....