TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 404
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on. The background in brief is that assessee is a non-filer. His case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act for A.Y. 2010-11 on account of cash deposit of more than Rs. 10,00,000/- (i.e. Rs. 90,15,000/-) in assessee's bank account during the F.Y. 2009-10. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2017 was issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee filed return of income in response thereof, declaring income at Rs. 1,50,420/- and agricultural income of Rs. 9,75,240/-. Assessment proceedings were completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, accepting the returned income vide assessment order dated 22.12.2017. 3. Ld PCIT, while exercising revisional powers vested in him u/s. 263 of the Act, passed original revisional order dated 26.03.2020 and observed that assessee had taken advance of Rs. 77,73,275/- against the sale of land on behalf of assessee's sons Amir Singh & Shabeer Singh from four persons namely Shri Rajeev Sharma, Shri Satendra Singh Sengar, Shri Naresh Singh Parmar and Shri Devi Pratap Singh Chauhan. Ld PCIT further observed that the assessee also deposited the sale profits of his agriculture crops of approximately 12,00,000/-. Ld PCIT made observation that the assessee did ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e garb of providing reasons for invoking its revisionary jurisdiction, has stepped into the shoes of the Adjudicating authority and made observations on the merits of the case. Therefore, the Impugned Order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Ground 2 - Assessment order dated 22.12.2017 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue 2.1 The Appellant submits that the PCIT erred in holding that the assessment order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the Ld. ITO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2.2 The PCIT alleged that the Ld. ITO did not make proper inquiries or verification regarding the source and nature of the cash advances of Rs. 77,73,275/- 2.3 This allegation is baseless and factually incorrect. The Ld. ITO, while passing the assessment order dated 22.12.2017, duly considered the issue. The Ld. ITO conducted multiple inquiries and verified the claim. 2.4 Specifically, the Ld. ITO recorded the statements of the buyers of the agricultural land (Shri Naresh Singh Parmar and Shri Satendra Singh Sengar) on oath to verify the Appellant's claim about receiving advances on behalf ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion and Stamp authority when the final sale deeds were executed in June-July 2017 (pertaining to FY 2017-18). 3.6 The PCIT's doubt regarding the genuineness of the transaction solely based on the lack of a formal power of attorney at the time of receiving the advance and the gap between receiving the advance and the final sale is unwarranted and ignores the evidence presented during the assessment proceedings and in the Appellant's reply. Ground 4-The PCTT's finding based on "human probability" is erroneous: 4.1 The Appellant submits that the PCIT erred in concluding that the facts of the case "do not accord with the human probability theory", citing the Apex Court case of Sumati Dayal v CIT. 4.2 The PCIT's conclusion is based on the assumptions that a purchaser would not pay a large cash advance without formal documentation or a POA, and that depositing the amount in the father's account instead of the sons' is improbable. 4.3 However, the circumstances explained by the Appellant (sons residing away, reliance on verbal authority in family matters, the nature of rural land transactions, subsequent formal document....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ground 7-The PCTT erred in disregarding the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) 7.1 Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Appellant submits that all the facts and circumstances of the present case were considered by the Ld. CIT(A) in a faceless appeal proceeding. Originally, an order under Section 263 was passed by the CTT on 26.03.2020, and thereafter, an assessment order was passed on 13.09.2021. This assessment order was challenged by the Appellant before the CIT(A) through the faceless appellate scheme. Further, the order dated 26.03.2020 was challenged before this Hon'ble Tribunal. This Hon'ble Tribunal had set aside the order dated 26.03.2020 vide its order dated 20.09.2023, and the matter was remanded to the PCIT. 7.2 Though the order dated 26.03.2020 was set aside, the Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal filed against the assessment order dated 13.09.2021 on merits vide its order dated 18.03.2024, The Ld. CIT(A) in a well-reasoned order decided the appeal in favour of the Appellant. It is submitted that the Appellant håd submitted a copy of this Hon'ble Tribunal's order dated 20.09.2023 before the CIT(A), however, even th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. Shri Devi Pratap Singh (buyer) deposed on 30.11.2017, Shri Satendra Singh Sengar and Shri Naresh Pratap Singh Parmar deposed on 12.02.2017 before the ld assessing officer. After taking on oath statement of all the four buyers, the statements were taken on record without any adverse comment by the assessing officer. In such a fact scenario, it is easily inferred that the assessing officer was satisfied in respect of the nature and source of the said transactions. The assessing officer, taking on oath statements of all four buyers and placing them on record without any adverse remarks is self explanatory that the deponents/buyers corroborated assessee's submissions in respect of the nature and source of the said transactions. 11. Some of the sample sale deeds were provided by the assessee which are at page 94 to 160 of the paper book. According to the contents of these registered sale deeds, the two sons of the assessee have accepted that they have received the part consideration in past at the time of execution of sale deeds. 12. This apart, a note dated 19.02.2020 written by one of the assessee's son Shabeer Singh along with an affidavit dated 20.11.2023 and another undate....