TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1273
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been submitted that the advocate of the assessee did not issue correct advice as a result of which the order could not be timely acted upon. The ld. Counsel pleaded that the delay be condoned. The ld. DR objected to the condonation of the delay and argued for levy of cost. We are conscious that no litigant benefits by delaying its matters. Accordingly, we proceed to condone the delay and adjudicate this appeal, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- by the assessee within one month of the receipt of this order to the Prime Minister Relief Fund. A receipt of the payment shall be made available to the ld. AO within one week of its payment. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No.938/Del/2025:- 1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) [National Faceless Appeal Centre, (the NFAC')], has erred on the facts and in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer passing order under section 144 r.w.s. 263 with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), assessing the income of the assessee under section 69A (though there were specific directions of the Pr. CIT was to consider the case as unexplained cash credit within the meaning of u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....revisionary powers under section 263 and through order dated 23/03/2022 held that the impugned assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order and to recompute the assessee's income after making further enquiries. The ld. PCIT held that the Assessing Officer ought to have made more enquiries, collect more evidences and gathered third party reliable documentary evidence duly recorded independently to justify that the assessee was into this business, genuinely. No mails, vouchers, payments, purchase bills, transport chares details, parcels, delivery memo, sale register, purchase register, cash book etc. were produced/examined. The assessment order was therefore clearly erroneous as it was passed without proper examination, enquiry or verification of deposits. The ld. PCIT held at page 12, on para 18 of his order, "...it is clear that during the course of proceedings u/s 263, the assessee has failed to explain the deposits of Rs. 29,67,900/- Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to charge the tax on the same considering as unexplained cash credit within the meaning of uls 68 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be observed that revenue cannot disputed the fact that while making assessment specific queries were raised by the ld AO questioning the deposit of amounts in the bank account and taking rescue of section 44AD the assessee had sought immunity of explanation and offered income to be tax @8%, u/s 44AD. The office note referred by ld AR explicitly determines the issue in favour of the assessee. However, ld Revisional Authority has gone into the questions of facts about the source of the deposits and giving his own reasons concluded that the deposits were unaccounted/ concealed income. The ld Revisional Authority has not only examined the deposits but also the manner of withdrawal. The copy of register showing the sale of milk and buffalos have been discredited to reach a finding that the ld AO failed to make enquiry. 9. The findings of ld Revisional Authority cannot be sustained as the enquiry in to the relevant issues is duly reflected in the assessment proceedings and only because the ld Pr. CIT being a higher authority and more wiser in experience considered that enquiry in some other aspects would have resulted in different opinion, does not give jurisdiction to exercise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elected u/s 147 for cash deposit of Rs. 44,72,000/- and notice u/s 148 was issued on 14-03-2018. In reply to notice, assessee filed return u/s 44AD and stated that during previous year he was doing business of petty contractor of civil labour work in Rajasthan. On further perusal of the assessment record and scrutiny of bank statement for cash deposit, it was revealed that the assessee deposited cash in multiple of lakh and hence, could not be treated as petty contractor as claimed. No details of business, clients and business address or related bills, purchase/sales invoice were attached to authenticate the business. No documentary evidence is available on record which can prove the source of cash deposit. No enquiry was made by the assessing officer in this connection in this case. Hence, the entire cash deposited remained unexplained and required to be treated as unexplained and taxed u/s 68 of the Act. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the assessment order under consideration passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in the light of Explanation 2 ....