Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 194 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - non-verification of source of cash deposit made during financial year 2013-14 - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee is having a taxable income and exempted income during the year which majorily comprise of profit from partnership firm totalling to ₹ 2,96,41,668/- and had sufficient cash in hand on various dates during the year out of which the amounts were deposited in the bank account. The major source of cash deposited in the amount received from the partnership firm. All these details of cash received from partnership firm and the amount deposited is the bank account were placed before assessing officer and after examination of these details assessment was completed. AO in the body of the assessment order did not record any observation regarding the transaction of cash deposits in the bank but the questionnaire issued during the course of assessment proceedings and various replies filed by the assessee shows that during the course of assessment proceeding specific query is raised regarding cash deposits in bank, calling of bank statements and other statement. To this specific query there is a specific reply given by the assessee which demonstrates that after receiving the information the AO had applied his mind on these transactions. More over the ld. CIT(A) has given a swiping statement that transaction between the assessee and the partnership firm (wherein assessee is partner) was exclusively through banking channel without rebutting the entries made in the cash book by the assessee duly supported by other independent evidence. As relying on ANIL KUMAR SHARMA [2010 (2) TMI 75 - DELHI HIGH COURT] since sufficient enquiry has been conducted by the Ld. AO during assessment proceedings with regard to the issues raised by the Ld. Pr. CIT in the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act and thus hold that Ld. Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and inferring that the assessing officer has not conducted enquiry. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|