TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1665
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 30/05/2023 passed under section 263 of the Act and held that the order passed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, and therefore, while setting aside the same for examination of the cash flow statement of the assessee to ascertain the source for investments made, expenditure incurred and various other outgoings, including the cash payment of Rs. 18,53,000/- made to Smt. Sailaja and for taking appropriate action as per law. 3. Aggrieved assessee filed this appeal. Learned AR submitted that the assessment under Section 153A of the Act has been concluded only after thorough examination of all the facts, relevant to conclude the assessment by the learned Assessing Officer, the learned Assessing Officer applied all the relevant provisions of law to reach a plausible view, and there are no errors or shortcomings in the process. He further submitted that the learned Assessing Officer verified all the relevant facts that required examination to conclude the assessment, and the learned PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 of the Act to revise these issues which have already been considered and decided. According to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eous nor prejudicial to the revenue and therefore, the invocation of Section 263 of the Act by the learned PCIT is not warranted. 7. Per contra, learned DR submitted that though the assessee was requested vide notice dated 25/11/2020 by the learned Assessing Officer to furnish a cash flow statement, the assessee never issued any such statement, but the learned Assessing Officer completed the assessment without examining the same. He further submitted that in the confirmation letter dated 3/6/2021 the assessee did not explain the sources for the cash of Rs. 18.53 lakhs but simply stated that it was paid out of his own funds and such a fact is not supported by any cash flow statement. He submitted that on the face of this fact is not open for the assessee to contend that the learned Assessing Officer examined all the issues extensively and took a view as per law and therefore, learned CIT(A) rightly rejected the contentions of the assessee and set aside the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for examination of the cash flow statement to ascertain the sources for the investments made, expenditure incurred and various other outgoings including the cash payment of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant provided evidence of the assessee's returned income, including the Gross income of Rs. 72,00,000 from salary, as reflected in the assessee's Return of income, net taxable income of Rs. 1,32,185/- from profits of business, and the net income of Rs. 1,25,000/- from other sources. 12. Basing on this learned AR vehemently submits that the assessee's total known income amounted to Rs. 73,00,000/-, far exceeding the amount required for the repayment of the loan, which was only Rs. 18,53,000/-. Learned AR contended that, based on this declared income, the learned Assessing Officer should have accepted that the assessee had sufficient funds to meet the repayment obligation. The contention was that, under the circumstances, there was no deficiency in examining the assessee's source of funds for the loan repayment, as the learned Assessing Officer had already done so adequately by verifying the available income and the supporting documents. 13. It is the settled principle of law that if the learned Assessing Officer made a thorough and appropriate enquiry, such assessment cannot be said to be erroneous merely because a difference of opinion exists regarding the sufficiency of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issues that are central to the assessment. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer's satisfaction with the capacity of the assessee to repay the loan based on other materials in the form of the returns of income need not be dubbed as falling short enquiry. 17. Coming to the decision of the learned PCIT's to set aside the assessment under Section 263 of the Act, view of the learned PCIT is based on a difference of opinion with the learned Assessing Officer regarding the sufficiency of the investigation. Learned PCIT, in exercise of his Revisionary jurisdiction opined that the learned Assessing Officer failed to make a proper investigation into the source of funds for the loan repayment, whereas the assessee agitates that the learned Assessing Officer did examine all relevant financial details and had sufficient grounds to conclude that the loan was repaid from legitimate sources. 18. It is the settled principle of law that the suo-motu Revisionary under Section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised merely because of differences in opinion between the learned PCIT and learned Assessing Officer. Section 263 of the Act provides for the Revision of an order of assessment only where ....