TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... staken view of law or how the AO has erroneous applied the provisions of the law has not been spelt out by the ld. Pr. CIT. Further, there is a clear finding given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, as we have noted above, where the assessee was asked to explain the nature and source of the cash deposit in his bank account and after considering the submissions so filed by the assessee along with corroborative evidences that the source of such cash deposits are out of his agricultural produce, the cash deposits were found duly explained and the returned income was accepted. Therefore, the findings of the ld. Pr. CIT that the assessee failed to submit the source of cash deposit made in his bank account and the AO has not mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions so filed by the assessee, the assessment order so passed by the AO was held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue due to failure on part of the AO to verify the source of cash deposits and the assessment order was set-aside to the file of the AO to examine the said matter and decide afresh after making proper enquiries. Against the said findings and the order of the ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. Regarding ground Nos. 1, the ld. AR submitted that as evident from the assessment order dt. 25.09.2019, the Ld. AO very clearly stated that the assessee was asked to explain the nature and sources of the above time deposits and cash deposits. The AR of the assessee submitted reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 295 ITR 0282 (SC) wherein it was held that the phrase prejudicial to the interest of revenue in section 263 of the Act, has to be read in conjunction with the expression erroneous order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. For example, when the AO adopts one of the two courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, of where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which he commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the revenue, unless the view taken by the AO in unsustainable in law. 6. In the case of CIT v. Girdhari Lal (2002) 176 CTR (Raj.) 0092/258 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e body of the show cause notice and order u/s. 263. Hence the show cause notice as well as the order u/s. 263 passed by the Ld. PCIT are invalid and non est in law. 9. Per contra, the ld. CIT DR has relied on the findings of the ld. Pr. CIT and submitted that it is a clear case where the source of cash deposit in the assessee's bank account has not been verified by the AO rendering the assessment order so passed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Further, regarding non-quoting of DIN in the show-cause notice and the order passed u/s. 263, it was submitted that circular No. 19/2019 is intended primarily for dealing with communication relating to assessment proceedings and does not apply to revision proceedings an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at in terms of press release of PIB Delhi dt. 14.8.2019, the CBDT had clarified that Any communication which is not in conformity with the prescribed guidelines shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued . Hence now it is very much crystal clear that the Ld. PCIT, Alwar violating the above circular issued show cause notice dt. 11.11.2019 and order u/s. 263 dt. 04.02.2020 without generating the required DIN and without quoting the DIN in the body of the show cause notice and order u/s. 263. Hence the show cause notice as well as the order u/s. 263 passed by the Ld. PCIT are invalid and non est in law. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In this case, the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vity having 18 Bigha of irrigated land in village Behrawali, Kurka, Tehsil Roopwas, Bharatpur in the name of himself and his brother Sh. Suresh and they are living jointly. The copy of Khasra and Jamabandi is submitted. The assessee was deposited various amount in cash in saving account on different dated in Urban Cooperative bank ₹ 2,90,000/- has been deposited on 24.05.2010 out of sale of agriculture produce during the year and remaining amount of ₹ 1,50,000/- out of withdrawal made from OD account and same has been deposited. 12. The ld. Pr. CIT has however stated that the order so passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as the order is based on mistaken vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
