TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dicial to interest of the revenue when the impugned assessment order was passed by AO with the approval of National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) as per guidelines issued by Board in view of provisions of section 144B(1)(xvi) (a) of the Act and more particularly when the Pr. CIT has not pointed our any error in the approval granted NFAC. 3. On the basis of facts and as per law, the Pr. CIT is not justified in exercising the jurisdiction u/s. 263 in respect of the assessment order which itself is invalid because the notice u/s. 143(2) was not issued by the AO. 4. The appellant craves for the addition to, deletion, alteration, modification of the above grounds of appeal." 3. Initially, the assessee did not file its return of income. The Assessing Officer received information from the Asstt. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Akola, that the assessee, during the year under consideration, had entered into high value transaction in his bank account available with ICICI Bank to the tune of Rs. 2,16,86,186. Hence, the assessee's case was re-opened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. Notices were als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Even this aspect was also not examined by the FAO. This in itself is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue as per Sec 263. Further, the assessee has not attempted to furnish any asset liability statement, balance sheet, profit and loss account or books of accounts maintained by him to demonstrate that the deposits in the banks of Rs 2,16,86,186/- were explained. Merely enclosing sale deeds and Annexure titled as "Details of amount credited into the bank accounts during the FY 2013-14" does not explain and justify the sources of cash deposits. 5.5 In the light of the examination of the records in this case, and the factual matrix as described in the paras above, after giving the assessee an opportunity of beingheard, I am of the considered view that the assessment order u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue as per the provisions of Section 263 and explanation 2 (a) and 2 (b) to Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as these issues were neither examined by the AO nor were thes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed at Page-17-19 of the Paper Book issued on account of change of incumbent, wherein interestingly at Para-6.1 it is mentioned that the order passed under section 147 r/w section 144B of the Act dated 30/03/2022 is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue within the meaning of Explanation 2(a) and 2(b) of section 263 of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee stressed that originally the impugned case was held to be covered within the meaning of Explanation 2(a) of section 263 of the Act and which was suddenly enlarged so as to cover Explanation 2(a) and 2(b) of section 263 of the Act which is impermissible under law. Explanation 2(b) of section 263 of the Act covers cases where the order was passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim. The learned counsel for the assessee emphasised that even the learned PCIT was not sure as to under what clause the impugned powers under section 263 are being exercised which in itself vitiates the entire proceedings under section 263 of the Act and further that the scope of proceedings under section 263 cannot be subsequently enlarged as has been done in the present case. The learned counsel for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....304, it is more than the figure of Rs. 5,30,794 stated by the learned PCIT herself and as such no prejudice has been caused to the Revenue warranting initiation of proceedings under section 263 of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that considering the business receipts of Rs. 66,34,931 and the assessed income by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 6,18,304, which the Assessing Officer has arrived at after considering the figure of returned income as well, the income assessed on the business receipts comes to 9.32% and in the opinion of the counsel for the Assessee it cannot be said that the income has been assessed only at 2% considering the facts and circumstance of the case as held by the learned PCIT making it the basis of initiating proceedings under section 263 of the Act. It is further the case of the assessee that the powers under section 263 cannot be invoked to enhance the percentage estimated by the Assessing Officer especially when the Assessing Officer has exercised powers under section 144 of the Act. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that section 144 empowers the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment to the best of his judgem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the appeal of the assessee be dismissed and the order passed by DCIT under section 263 be confirmed. 9. We have gone through the details furnished by the parties as well as the arguments put forth by the parties and on a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments of the parties, we are inclined to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the assessee. We find force in the argument of the assessee that this is a case where the assessment has been completed under section 144 of the Act which empowers the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment to the best of his judgement. The assessment having been completed by the Assessing Officer to the best of his judgement cannot be faulted with as best possible judgement exercised by the Assessing Officer cannot be bettered by the learned PCIT as that would amount to interfering and disturbing the best judgement exercised by the Assessing Officer. A judgement/view having exercised by the Assessing Officer which under law is deemed to be best possible judgement can by no stretch of imagination be held to be erroneous as the Assessing Officer vide vested right granted to him un....