TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2017. Non-deposit of cash from sales made from 1.11.2016 to 8.11.2016 , it is trite that this is the prerogative of the assessee and the Department cannot step into the shoes of the businessman to determine such a matter as the time of deposit of money in the bank. Assessing Officer did not verify the sales trend from VAT returns and from the books of account of the preceding year, the assessee had submitted financial statements of the year under consideration before the Assessing Officer. These financial statements contained the figures of sales of the preceding years also. This also points to the fact that it was not a case of no enquiry. Rather, the view of the CIT is that adequate enquiry was not carried out by the Assessing Officer. This, to reiterate, is not the purpose or purport of proceedings under section 263 of the Act. The Assessing Officer, obviously, had verified the sales from the financial statements and the books of account and, as such, it cannot be said that proper enquiry had not been made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee s VAT assessment order for the year under consideration - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.06/VNS/2021 (Assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act was completed on 21.05.2019, accepting the returned income of the assessee. The Ld. Pr. CIT initiated revisional proceedings under section 263 of the Act and passed the order dated 22.03.2021, setting aside the original assessment order of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the notice was issued u/s 263 of the Act by considering the assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) of the Act to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, on the grounds that the assessee has deposited cash of ₹ 60,00,000/- in his bank account during the period of demonetization; that there is no cash sales before 21.10.2016 as is evident from the sales register; that moreover, the cash sales after 05.11.2016 is also very nominal; that all cash sales have been shown at a sale price less than ₹ 50,000/- to avoid the requirement of PAN and other details; that inspite of having huge cash balance, the same was not deposited during the period from 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016; that the Assessing Officer has neither verified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee accordingly submitted that from the above discussion based on the facts of the case, it is apparent that a thorough and detailed enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer and the assessee furnished detailed written submissions, alongwith documents, such as copy of account, bank statements, desired evidences, etc. in compliance to the queries raised from time to time during the assessment proceedings; and that thereby, the order passed after making of a detailed enquiry by the assessing officer cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 7. It was next submitted on behalf of the Assessee that moreover, the Pr. CIT had cast doubt on the cash sales made by the assessee as shown, amounting to ₹ 57 lakhs during the period from 21.10.2016 to 05.11.2016; that the said doubt has been cast on the assessee on the basis of presumption only; that the assessee is regularly engaged in the trading of silver and silver ornaments; that in India, people pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regularly filed VAT Returns and has never revised the said returns; that the assessment under VAT has also been completed in the assessee s case; and that the VAT assessment order as passed in the case of the assessee has also been filed before us (at APB 256-267). 11. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further argued that the Ld. Pr. CIT has not made any comment on the case laws cited and the arguments tendered by the assessee in support of the claim that the present revisional proceedings are invalid and illegal, since the Assessing Officer has passed the order after due enquiry; that however, the Ld. Pr. CIT has set aside the original assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment on the ground that he feels that more enquiry should be conducted in the case of the assessee, which is unsustainable in the eye of the law; and that hence, the order passed by the Pr. CIT is liable to be quashed. 12. Reliance was placed on the order of the ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Hirapanna Jewellers , in ITA No.253/Viz/2020, dated12.5.2021 (copy placed on record). 13. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, placing strong reliance on the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the preceding years was submitted. Necessary ledgers, complete cash book, stock details, etc., were filed. These facts are undisputed. The Assessing Officer accepted the income returned. The ld. CIT also does not state it to be a case of no enquiry. In his opinion, the Assessing Officer did not examine/enquire into the details of the facts of the case. These details, as per the ld. CIT, are that there was no cash sale before 21.10.2016, though huge sale was shown for the period from 21.10.2016 to 5.11.2016 and all sales were of less than ₹ 50,000/- and, thus, not identifiable; and that the amounts representing sales shown in the cash book for the period from 1.11.2016 to 8.11.2016 were not deposited in the Bank. According to the ld. CIT, these facts ought to have been examined by the Assessing Officer along with the sales pattern in the VAT return. 18. Thus, it was not a case of lack of enquiry, but a case of inadequate enquiry, in the opinion of the ld. CIT. 19. In Narayan Tatu Rane vs. ITO , [2016] 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mumbai Trib.), it has been held that the ld. CIT(A) has no unfettered powers to revise each and every order, if in his opinion, the same has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e period from 1.4.2016 to 31.3.2017. These are contained at pages 229 to 231 of the assessee s paper book. 25. So far as regards the observation concerning nondeposit of cash from sales made from 1.11.2016 to 8.11.2016, it is trite that this is the prerogative of the assessee and the Department cannot step into the shoes of the businessman to determine such a matter as the time of deposit of money in the bank. 26. Concerning the observation that the Assessing Officer did not verify the sales trend from VAT returns and from the books of account of the preceding year, the assessee had submitted financial statements of the year under consideration (APB:268-281) before the Assessing Officer. These financial statements contained the figures of sales of the preceding years also. This also points to the fact that it was not a case of no enquiry. Rather, the view of the CIT is that adequate enquiry was not carried out by the Assessing Officer. This, to reiterate, is not the purpose or purport of proceedings under section 263 of the Act. The Assessing Officer, obviously, had verified the sales from the financial statements and the books of account and, as such, it cannot be said that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
