TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d [ 2007 (11) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] , Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [ 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] are aptly applicable in the present case as the Hon ble Apex Court wherein it is held that Section 263 has to be read in conjunction with the expression erroneous order passed by the assessing officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the assessing officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. For example, when an Income Tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts in holding the assessment order passed u/s 153A/143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. That having regard to facts circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order u/s 263 which is bad in law in as much as no adequate opportunity of hearing was granted and framing the impugned order without considering the principles of natural justice. 5. That having regard to facts circumstances of the case, Ld Pr.CIT has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order u/s 263 which is barred by limitation, illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to law and facts and deserves to be quashed. 6. That the appellant craves the leave to add, amend, modify, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... government at the prescribed rate. The Ld. AR submitted that the cash received from these sales were deposited by the assessee in his bank account. This fact along with cash book, sales register, cash invoices, VAT returns and bank account etc were well presented before the Assessing Officer and after thorough examination of assessee s contention, the Assessing Officer was satisfied and was in view that nothing adverse could be drawn for the cash deposits. The Ld. AR pointed out that the questionnaire dated 19.12.2016 issued by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment specifically focusing on the cash deposited in the bank accounts of the assessee and further sought the explanation from assessee about the source of such cash dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rofit and loss account after adjustments. The invoices for the sale made in cash was also recorded in the books of accounts and was produced before the Assessing Officer which was after careful examination by the Assessing Officer was accepted the return of income of the assessee. The assessee also filed copy of auditor s report along with the audited balance sheet and profit and loss account for the impugned year filed before the Assessing Officer which shows that the assessee has shown the total net sale of ₹ 3,54,36,476/- which are inclusive of the cash sales. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer made every possible enquiry regarding the cash deposits and assessee has duly filed all the documents that have established th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Pr. CIT and further submitted that there is no enquiry made by the Assessing Officer as to the cash deposits and the Pr. CIT rightly directed the Assessing Officer to pass speaking order. The Ld. DR relied upon the following decisions: 1. Denial Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (Appeal No. 2396/Del/2017 2. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. F CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 25 (Delhi) 3. Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs PC IT (I.T.A. No.2158/DEL/2017) ITAT Delhi 4. Surya Financial Services Ltd Vs PCIT (I.T.A. No.2158/DEL/2017) ITAT Delhi 5. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)/[2000] 159 CTR 1 (SC) 6. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT [70 taxmann. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iry or investigation are treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, but which are passed after inquiry/investigation on the question/issue are not per se are normally treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Because, the Revisionary Authority feels and opines that further inquiry/investigation was required or deeper or further scrutiny should be undertaken, the same cannot be initiated without following the proper provisions u/s 263 of the Act. In the present case the Assessing Officer has made all the inquiries and after verifying the documents/ material on record passed a reasoned Assessment Order. Therefore, the Commissioner does not have any locus standi to make further inquiry. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
