TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urisdiction u/s 263 by wrongly and incorrectly holding that the subjected assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 29.09.2021 is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 being contrary to the provisions of law and facts on record, hence, the proceedings initiated u/s 263 hence, the impugned order dated 26.03.2024 deserves to be quashed. 3. The Id. PCIT Udaipur, erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in wrongly setting aside the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 in as much, the Id. PCIT, Udaipur completely ignored/did not judiciously appreciate the detailed written submission filed before him, though was taken note of. He even ignored that the ld. AO raised a specific query on invoking (or otherwise) of S. 115BBE which was duly replied by the appellant in a great detail and therefore the allegations of the PCIT in the impugned are factually incorrect, unjustified and hence, the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 26.03.2024 deserves to be quashed.'' 3. Brief facts of the case as emerges from the assessment order dated 29-09-2021 are that the case of the assessee was selected for Complete Scrutiny assessment under the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he facts and circumstances of the enumerated from the material available on record and my observations are as under: - (i) The assessee had accepted undisclosed& Additional Income of Rs. 76,00,000/- in his statement duly recorded during survey proceedings. (ii) Out of this admitted additional income of Rs. 76,00,000/-. Rs. 9,50,000/- was on account of difference in cash balance Rs. 45,50,000/- on account of undisclosed sundry debtors and balance of Rs. 21,00,000/- on account of unaccounted expenses for construction. (iii) In the ITR, the assessee declared the aforesaid sum of Rs. 76,00,000/- under the head 'Business Income'. The A.O/NaFAC, while completing the assessment u/s 143(3)/144B of the Act, accepted the same without verifying the sources of that income, particularly the business nexus of such Unexplained (Admitted to be as additional Income) sums, respectively. (iv) The applicable tax should have been charged u/s 69 as Unexplained Investment for Rs. 66,50,000 (45,50,000 +21,00,000), AND Rs. 9,50,000/- (Unexplained Money) should have been charged u/s 69A of the Act and hence, the tax should have been charged u/s 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961, which was not done by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim It reads as under:- (Amendment of section 263 w.e.f 01.06.2015). 67. In section 263 of the Income-tax Act, in sub-section (1), the Explanation shall be numbered as Explanation 1 thereof and after Explanation 1 as so numbered, the following Explanation shall be inserted with effect from the 1st day of June, 2015, namely: - "Explanation 2. -For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, - (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.". 7.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, there is nothing in section 263 to show that the Commissioner should in all cases record his final conclusion on the points in controversy before him. The legislative intent to bring the amendment was to make clear the provisions of Explanation to section 263 and to reduce the litigations in this regard which is well supported in view of the clear words used in clause (a) of the Explanation 2 to section 263 (1) wherein it is mentioned that the order passed by the AO shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, if in the opinion of the PCIT the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made. If the order is passed without application of mind. such order will fall under the category of erroneous order'' 8. Considering the above facts, it is held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer (NFAC) u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the IT Act dated 29.09.2021 is suffering from specific defects, hence, order so passed by the AO is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The order of the assessing officer is therefore, liable to revision under clause (a) &(b) of the Explanation (2) o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provision will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of the fact or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interest of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO. Every loss of Revenue as a consequence of the order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. For example, if the AO has adopted one of the two or more courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and AO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is totally unsustainable in law. Kindly refer Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). 1.2 Also kindly refer CIT v/s Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) wherein it is held that "The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" in S. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use notice and draft assessment order, the assessee has been asked as to why the tax be not computed as per the provisions of S. 115BBE of the Act, on the amount of additional income surrendered being Rs. 76,00,000/- in the course of survey conducted on, dated 16.01.2019. In this connection our submissions are as under: 1. Provisions of section 115BBE: The provisions of section 115BBE(1) reads as under: "(1) Where the total income of an assessee, - 1. includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139; or 2. determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- 1. the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and 2. the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (i).] (2) Not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... remains disclosed or undisclosed or explained or unexplained. If the income is disclosed or explained as mandated by the law, then same would be taxable in the ordinary manner. On the other hand, if the income is undisclosed or unexplained then the provisions of section 115BBE may be triggered depending upon the facts involved in each of the cases. The moment a satisfactory explanation is provided about nature and source then the source would stand explained and therefore, the income would be computed under the appropriate head of income as per the provisions of the Act. 4. On perusal of the Finance Minister's speech and Explanatory Memorandum (2), it is clear that the legislative intent behind introduction of section 115BBE was to curb the generation and use of unaccounted money and tax the same at the highest rate. 5. However, in this case the only regular source of income of the assessee in A.Y. 2019- 20 was the real estate business (and the connected ancillary activities/services thereto). The assessee was in receipt of the profit on the purchase and sale of properties and also commission/brokerage income and consultancy income relating to the real estate business. There i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... arising from the real estate transaction of the purchase and sale, were advanced /given to various debtors. There apart, additional cash found also arose from same business activity. There apart, additional income of Rs. 21,00,000/- on account of construction activity, was in fact related to the construction of the apartment, villas, houses etc for the buyers during the relevant previous years. The said table shows the utilization/availability of the funds under different heads of the asset/expenditure etc and their nature also suggest that the additional income was related to/arose during the course of the real estate business only. The investment/ outgoing is clearly identifiable with the regular stock, cash, construction of real estate business activities only. There is no mention or whisper in these statements that such surrendered income was something beyond or in addition to the real estate business or that there was some other source of income giving rise to such additional income/ alleged undisclosed Income. In these circumstances, the only inescapable conclusion is that the surrendered income was nothing but a business income from the real estate business of the assessee.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... head income from other sources. 7.3 In case of Shri Lovish Singhal vs ITO (ITA No 142 to 146/Jodh/2018 for AY 2014- 15 dated 25 May 2018), the Jodhpur Tribunal applying the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the Bajargan Traders (supra), held that the lower authorities were not justified in taxing the surrender made on account of excess stock and excess cash found U/s 69 of the Act and accordingly held that there is no justification for taxing such income U/s 115BBE of the Act. In view of the facts & circumstances, judicial guidelines and the statutory provisions, the additional income declared during survey of Rs. 76,00,000/- cannot be subjected to S. 115BBE of the Act". In the ROI itself, as stated in the SCN u/s 263, the subjected additional income of Rs 76 Lakh was declared as income from business and profession. With regard to the source of such additional income, the aforesaid detailed submission on its own clarified the source/ nexus with the real estate business which the assessee was carrying on at that point of time. Thus, AO made full enquiries and applied his mind which, he was supposed to do as contemplated by law. Based thereon, h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wn opinion for that of the AO. In this case the AO made pointed inquiries got the submission and applied his mind and in the light of the judicial guideline made available before him, he formed an opinion. Such an opinion cannot be substituted by the ld. CIT u/s 263 merely because it is getting more revenue to the department. kindly refer CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 71 Taxman 585 (Bombay) 6. The issue in hand in the context of Section 263 is directly covered by the decisions in the following cases: 6.1. In Surendra Kumar vs. PCIT (2023) 222 TTJ_UO (Chd) it was held that: "Principal CIT has confused himself between 'undisclosed income' and the words 'unexplained income'. Provisions of ss. 68 to 69D are attracted in respect of the undisclosed income but the condition for assessing such income under the said provisions is that the assessee has either failed to disclose the nature and source of such income or the AO is not satisfied with the explanation offered by him. The perusal of the relevant part of the audit report proposal of the AO and show-cause notice issued by the Principal CIT under s. 263 would show that all the aforesaid authorities have been s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were raised and the answers given during the survey show that the additional income declared on account of advances and the cash found emanated from and related to the real estate business only-Even the Principal CIT has admitted in the impugned order that this income pertains to recovery of cash amounts of advances made by the assessee to the other persons for purchase of land/plots- Undisputedly the assessee is engaged in the real estate business and there is no undisclosed or unknown source of income and the source of additional income so admitted is clearly identifiable and is the regular business of real estate-Since the additional income is related to the real estate business it is certainly assessable as business income and cannot be considered as income falling under s. 68/69A- AO having applied his mind in accepting the said additional income as business income, there was no error in the assessment order-Thus, the Principal CIT was not justified in expecting the AO to apply s. 115BBE as also s. 271AAC by merely imposing and substituting his own opinion, which is not the legislative intent even behind Expln. 2(a) to s. 263-Further, merely because the assessee has taken a m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cal findings that these items of income could be assessed under the head of Income from other sources. Further, a decision of this Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Rekha Shekhawat vs. PCIT (supra) which was also a case of real-estate developer/ builder, cited in Para 6.2 and reproduced at Pg. 13 of her order, was not at all adverted. 8. Clause (a) of Explanation 2 of Section 263 - Wrongly invoked: The ld. PCIT has dealt with this issue at Pg 15 of the impugned order : 8.1 At the outset, this was never made a ground in the Show Cause Notice issued u/s 263 (PB 73-75) and therefore, the ld. PCIT could not have adopted such reasoning in the impugned order for the first time, which was not confronted to the assessee earlier. Reliance is placed on PCIT vs. Shreeji Prints (P.) Ltd. 2021 [130 taxmann.com 294 (SC)] (DC 47-52) wherein it is held "SLP dismissed against impugned order passed by High Court holding that where assessee-company had received unsecured loans from two different companies and Assessing Officer had made inquires in detail and accepted genuineness of same, such view of Assessing Officer being a plausible view could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to interest o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r has taken the plausible view which is valid in the eyes of law. The Assessing Officer was satisfied consequent to making enquiry and after examining the evidences produced by the assessee, he accepted the assessee's claim of loan similar view were also expressed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. [2013] 212 taxman 0184. We observe the Pr.CIT has drawn support from newly inserted Explanation 2 below section 263(1) of the Act introduced by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1-6-2015 for his action. The Explanation 2 inter alia provides that the order passed without making inquiries or verification 'which should have been made' will be deemed to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It is on this basis, the assessment order passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act has been set aside with a direction to the AO to pass a fresh assessment order. It will be therefore imperative to dwell upon the impact of Explanation 2 for the purposes of section 263 of the Act. X X X X. "17 We thus find merit in the plea of the assessee that the Revisional Commissioner is expected show that the view taken ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Therefore, we cancel the impugned order under section 263 of the Act, allowing all grounds of appeal of the Assessee." 8.2 In Mahaveer Prasad Jain vs. PCIT [2023] 153 taxmann.com 207 (Jaipur - Trib.) (DC 53-66) this Hon'ble bench has held as under: "9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record and also gone through the judicial decision relied upon. Both the parties have not disputed the fact mentioned in the assessment proceeding about the act of the assessee in depositing a sum of Rs. 51.60 lac in the bank account during the period of demonetization. Out of the cash so deposited a sum of Rs. 16.80 lac was consisting of high value notes of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000. The ld. PCIT in his order contended that the ld. AO has not properly addressed the issue while completing the assessment. Even the ld. DR did not place anything further to support the any specific error on the part of the assessee. We have perused the assessment order and the relevant submission on the issue that the assessee has given details in the assessment proceeding at four instance so as to support PITHISARIA the fact that inquiry....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty. In the above case and in Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO (2013) 7 NYPTTJ 1493 (Mum.), it was held that newly inserted Explanation 2(a) to Sec. 263 does not authorize or give unfettered powers to Commissioner to revise each and every order, if in his (subjective) opinion, same has been passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made. 7. Thus, in the totality of facts and circumstances, it is not at all a case where the subjected assessment order dt. 29.09.2021 should be alleged to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. There is neither an no error of law nor of facts. There is no erroneous assumption by the AO of either the facts or of law, as alleged by the ld. PCIT. In view of these legal and factual submissions, and the binding judicial precedents, the impugned order passed u/s 263 deserves to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. PCIT and repeated the same arguments which are recorded in the impugned order. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In the present appeal the assessee has raised as much as three grounds of appeal all relate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ight of that aspect of the matter ld. PCIT considered that the order of the assessment is liable to revision under clause (a) & (b) of the Explanation (2) of section 263 of the Act. The bench noted in response to the show cause notice issued by the ld. PCIT assessee-appellant filed point to point response to the queries raised by the Ld. PCIT. Upon considering the rival contentions and orders of the lower authority that in this case the limited issue for the consideration is that the assessee was surveyed by the revenue. In that proceeding the assessee surrendered a sum of Rs. 76,00,000/- comprising of undisclosed debtors for an amount of Rs. 45,50,000/-, excess cash found Rs. 9,50,000/- and unaccounted construction Rs. 21,00,000/-. While filling the return of income thereafter the assessee has admitted the additional income disclosed in the survey proceedings. While conducting the assessment proceeding the ld. AO initiated a specific enquiry to the assessee and a show cause notice was issued proposing the variation in the assessment asking the assessee-appellant as to why the provision of section 115BBE should not be applied vide notice dated 24.09.2021. The said show cause notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R 282 (SC) wherein it is held that ; "The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" in S. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example, when the Assessing Officer adopts one of two courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law." It is noted that ratio of these cases fully apply on the facts of the present case in principle and therefore, invoking of sec.263 was not legally justified also for the detailed reasons mentioned issue wise as under:- As regards due Enquiry Made with full application of mind, it is noted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be alleged that the AO did not verify the facts and particularly w.r.t the sour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he aggregate of- 1. the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and 2. the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (i).] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance [or set off of any loss] shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing his income referred to in clause (a) [and clause (b)] of subsection (1).]" 2.1 At the outset it is submitted that S.115BBE specifically refers to the income which are of the nature as referred in S. 68,69,69A of the Act being the income from other sources. Therefore, subjected income has essentially to be classified u/s 14 of the Act as income from other sources and that is possible only when the income is not capable of being classified under any other head being income from salary, house property, capital gain, business or profession. 2.2 A combined reading of S. 14 with S. 56 of the Act makes is evidently clear that for the assessment of an income it must have t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of income of the assessee in A.Y. 2019- 20 was the real estate business (and the connected ancillary activities/services thereto). The assessee was in receipt of the profit on the purchase and sale of properties and also commission/brokerage income and consultancy income relating to the real estate business. There is no other known or unknown source of income, neither stated by the assessee nor by the department. 6.1 In the present case, the facts & circumstances rather very clearly indicates and established that what was stated during survey on dated 16.01.2019, was nothing but the additional income of Rs. 76,00,000/- arising/ resulting from the regular business income only i.e. from real estate business and has to be classified u/s 14 r.w.s 28 as business income only and not income from other sources, for the following reasons: 6.1.1 It is submitted that whatever, was disclosed was nothing but additional income only and it cannot be termed as excess/undisclosed/unaccounted income for the simple reason that survey was carried out on 19.01.2019 i.e. before close of the relevant previous year ending on 31.03.2019 or in other words, during the currency of the previous year only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n addition to the real estate business or that there was some other source of income giving rise to such additional income/ alleged undisclosed Income. In these circumstances, the only inescapable conclusion is that the surrendered income was nothing but a business income from the real estate business of the assessee. Therefore, to consider subjected income as income from other sources "merely to levy more tax, is an illegal and unjustified attempt to invoke 115BBE" which is not clearly applicable on the facts of the present case and contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution of India. 6.5 Further importantly, the assessee has admittedly shown such additional income in its regularly maintained books of accounts as evident from the fact that in its Income and Expenditure account as sum of Rs. 76 Lakh stands credited. Subsequently in the computation also the admitted additional income has been shown under the head income from business and profession. 7. Judicial Guideline: The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, ITAT Jaipur and various other courts have held that where the additional income/ undisclosed income declared during the course of survey is relatable to some business activity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the source of such additional income, the aforesaid detailed submission on its own clarified the source/ nexus with the real estate business which the assessee was carrying on at that point of time. Thus, AO made full enquiries and applied his mind which, he was supposed to do as contemplated by law. Based thereon, he took his own decision which cannot be interfered with. 3. In fact, the AO (so also the CIT) was not even entitled to change the head of income on his own. kindly refer the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Karanpura Development Co Ltd vs. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC) held that these heads are in a sense exclusive to one another and income which falls within one head cannot be brought to tax under another head. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v CIT [1966] 61 ITR 428, has held that whether an income falls under one head or another is to be decided according to the common notions of practical man because the Act does not provide any guidance in the matter. Of course, lot of judicial precedents are available to a taxpayer to arrive at a conclusion about determination of appropriate head of income. 4.1. No error when AO acted in acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther failed to disclose the nature and source of such income or the AO is not satisfied with the explanation offered by him. The perusal of the relevant part of the audit report proposal of the AO and show-cause notice issued by the Principal CIT under s. 263 would show that all the aforesaid authorities have been swayed by the notion that the income surrendered by the assessee was undisclosed income of the assessee and therefore, the same has to be assessed under ss. 68 to 69D, as the case may be, and thereby would be charged to higher rate of tax under s. 115BBE. In the case in hand, the AO duly made enquiries from the assessee as to the nature and the source of the aforesaid surrendered income and also show caused the assessee as to why the same should not be charged at a higher rate of tax as per the provisions of s. 115BBE. After considering the submissions and explanations of the assessee the AO accepted the contention of the assessee that the surrendered income was out of the business income of the assessee. Principal CIT has not pointed out as to why the explanation offered by the assessee to the AO was not satisfactory and what more enquiries were required to be conducted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., there was no error in the assessment order-Thus, the Principal CIT was not justified in expecting the AO to apply s. 115BBE as also s. 271AAC by merely imposing and substituting his own opinion, which is not the legislative intent even behind Expln. 2(a) to s. 263-Further, merely because the assessee has taken a mistaken view of the correct legal position by wrongly showing such additional income under head income from other sources in her return, the same cannot be taken as an admission as there is no estoppel against statute-Therefore, Principal CIT was not justified in invoking the provisions of s. 263 by wrongly holding that the assessment order under s. 143(3) was passed without considering that the additional income fell under the purview of ss. 68 and 69 and that tax was chargeable under s. 115BBE as against normal rates-Hence, the proceedings initiated under s. 263 and the impugned order are quashed." 7. Dealing with the objection of the ld. PCIT: The ld. PCIT, in the impugned order [Para 6 page 14], has observed that the AO was wrong while assessing the additional income declared by the appellant during survey under the head "Business income", without verifying the sou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r passed by High Court holding that where assessee-company had received unsecured loans from two different companies and Assessing Officer had made inquires in detail and accepted genuineness of same, such view of Assessing Officer being a plausible view could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to interest of revenue" The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Shreeji Prints (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT affirmed the ld. ITAT order, the relevant extract of which is as under: "15 The Pr.CIT had observed that Explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act is clearly applicable and it is clear that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order after making enquiries for verification which ought to have been made in this case. However, we find that the Pr. CIT has not mentioned in the show-cause notice issued under section 263 that he is going to invoke the Explanation 2 to 263 hence, invocation of Explanation in the order without confronting the assessee is not appropriate and sustainable in law in support of this contention, the ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the following decision: CIT v. Amir Corporation 81 CCH 0069 (Guj.), CIT Mehrotra Brothem -270 ITR 0157 (MP,CIT v. Ganpet Ram Bis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide with a direction to the AO to pass a fresh assessment order. It will be therefore imperative to dwell upon the impact of Explanation 2 for the purposes of section 263 of the Act. X X X X. "17 We thus find merit in the plea of the assessee that the Revisional Commissioner is expected show that the view taken by the AO is wholly unsustainable in law before embarking upon exercise of revisionary powers. The revisional powers cannot be exercised for directing a fuller inquiry to merely find out if the earlier view taken is erroneous particularly when a view was already taken after inquiry. If such course of action as interpreted by the Revisional Commissioner in the light of the Explanation 2 is permitted, Revisional Commissioner can possibly find fault with each and every assessment order without himself making any inquiry or verification and without establishing that assessment order is not sustainable in law. This would inevitably mean that every order of the lower authority would thus become susceptible to section 263 of the Act and, in turn, will cause serious unintended hardship to the tax payer concerned for no fault on his part. Apparently, this is not intended by the Ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the ld. DR did not place anything further to support the any specific error on the part of the assessee. We have perused the assessment order and the relevant submission on the issue that the assessee has given details in the assessment proceeding at four instance so as to support PITHISARIA the fact that inquiry in relation to the generation of the cash by the assessee is verified by the ld. AO. It is also not disputed by the PCIT or ld. Sr. DR for the balance amount deposited in the demonetized period which is that out of 51.60 lacs but disputed only for an amount Rs. 16.80 lac being the demonetized currency. There is no evidence or material that has been observed by the PCIT from the details so placed on record by the assessee in the assessment proceeding to disbelieve the averments about the source of the said demonetized currency. Merely the PCIT said that in his opinion the ld. AO has not properly addressed the issue. The observation so made is very general and routine without pinpointing any specific defect the action of the PCIT u/s. 263 is nothing but a review of the order of the ld. AO. It has been held in so many cases by the various High Courts and Tribunal that the a....