TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 139 (5) of the Act. Neither the assessee nor the CIT (A) has held that the revised return filed by the assessee is not bona fide and is not on account of any error or omission in the return of income filed originally. Therefore, the revised return filed by the assessee has to be accepted which was done in earlier year i.e. A.Y. 2011-12. The Ld. DR could not point out any distinguishing facts. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - I.T.A. No. 5803/DEL/2017 - - - Dated:- 15-11-2021 - MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR Respondent by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 31/07/2017 passed by CIT(A)-6, Delhi for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting addition of ₹ 10,39,66,491/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on account of cash deposits in bank account even when the asssessee had failed to discharge its initial onus to prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -12 was ₹ 5,93,03,873/- and ₹ 10,39,66.491/- during the A.Y. 2012-13. Shri Sandeep Kanwar, the Director of the company was summoned and examined by the Assessing Officer and his statement u/s 131 was recorded on 08/01/2013. In his statement, he stated that the ICICI Bank account opened in the name of the company was used for the purpose of depositing cash from the sales proceeds of the computers all over the country and the money was ultimately paid in cheque to the suppliers like M/s Atul Traders and M/s Victex International but the transactions were not accounted for or reflected in the regular books of accounts of the assessee. Since the transactions of the ICICI Bank account of cash deposits and the payments to the suppliers for the trading business of computers was not reflected in the regular books of accounts and consequent upon the enquiry and investigation by the investigation Wing, the assessee had revised its income by declaring one percent as additional commission income from the cash deposits of ₹ 5,93,039/- for the A.Y. 2011-12 and ₹ 10,39,665/- for the A.Y 2 0 1 2 - 1 3 . Since the transactions of aggregate cash deposits in the ICICI, bank acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he time assessee revised its return of income. Therefore, the revised return filed by the assessee is within the time allowed u/s 139 (5) of the act. 15. Neither the assessee nor the learned CIT A has held that the revised return filed by the assessee is not bona fide and is not on account of any error or omission in the return of income filed originally. Therefore, the revised return filed by the assessee is necessarily to be accepted. 16. Provision of section 143 (2) of the act dealing with assessment provides as under :- [Assessment. 30143. [(2) Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer shall,- (i) where he has reason to believe that any claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief made in the return is inadmissible, serve on the assessee a notice specifying particulars of such claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief and require him, on a date to be specified therein to produce, or cause to be produced, any evidence or particulars specified therein or on which the assessee may rely, in support of such claim: 34[Provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Applying the principles enunciated in the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as the Delhi High Court, cited supra, the Tribunal is right in coming to a conclusion that no action could be initiated under section 147 of the Act, when there is a pendency of the return before the Assessing Officer. The reasons given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. 18. Same is also the mandate of Honourable Delhi High court in [2007] 292 ITR 49 KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX where in it has been held that Where an assessment has not been framed at all, it is not possible to posit that income has escaped assessment. 19. In view of this we also held that when the revised return is pending before ld AO, Time limit for picking that return for scrutiny is pending u/s 143 (2) of the act, the ld AO could not have multiplied the proceedings and initiated proceedings u/s 148 of the act. 20. Even otherwise on the merits of the case the learned CIT A has noted that there were 887 instances of cash deposits during the year a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... number 1, 2 of the appeal are dismissed. Further the learned senior departmental representative could not show us what are the additional evidences admitted by the learned CIT A, we also did not find any additional evidence discussed by the learned CIT A, in view of this ground number 3 of the appeal of the AO is also dismissed. 21. In view of above facts and circumstances, for the reasons stated above, appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed. In the present Assessment Year i.e. 2012-13, the Original return of income filed u/s 139(1) on 30.09.2012 declaring income of ₹ 5,10,548/-. The revised return was filed u/s 139(5) on 10.02.2013. The notice u/s 143(2)/148(1) was issued on 30.03.2013. Thus, the assessee filed its revised return of income prior to issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act which is within the prescribed time limit as per Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee revised its return of income on 12 February 2013 declaring wherein the income which was not disclosed in the original return of income. Thus the total income was revised at ₹ 15,50,213/- declaring the additional commission income of ₹ 10,39,665. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
