Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 979 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - reopening of assessment u/s 147 - undisclosed income - Unexplained bank account deposits - HELD THAT:- As assessee has himself stated that deposits in the bank account no.07371000041778 are out of undisclosed source of income. Moreover, the assessee has not retracted his statement later on, and in fact he agreed to pay the due taxes on the said undisclosed income. No doubt, the assessing officer has raised this issue during the reassessment proceedings, however, he reached on a wrong conclusion,wherein the assessing officer has discussed the issue of cash deposit to the tune of ₹ 11,65,300/-. The AR of the assessee explained that said cash of ₹ 11,65,300/- were receipt from the business carried out under section 44AE of the Act and the same has been reflected in the return of income to the tune of ₹ 84,000/-. In fact, said bank account was never disclosed by the assessee in the return of income and never reflected in return of income, therefore, assessing officer has reached on wrong conclusion to the effect that cash deposit of ₹ 11,65,300/- has been reflected in return of income, which is not sustainable in law, hence order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous. AO has made addition of ₹ 18,989/-, (vide para 6 of assessment order) being opening balance in bank account no.36612082001, instead of making addition to the tune of ₹ 11,65,300/- being cash deposited by the assessee during the assessment year under consideration, thus, assessing officer framed the assessment order with incorrect assumption of facts and without application of mind, therefore, order passed by the assessing officer is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Just to discuss the issue in the assessment order is not enough, it is to be seen whether assessing officer has applied his mind or not. The order u/s 263 of the IT Act, is valid even if one of the several items dealt with therein is found prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Further, it is also important to mention here that the provisions of Section 263 can be invoked even where full facts are disclosed but the AO has not examined these details as per correct provisions of law. In support of this proposition, Ld PCIT relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company,[1994 (7) TMI 36 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] - Based on the facts and circumstances narrated above, we note that ld PCIT has rightly exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 - Decided against assessee.
|