TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rization as explained money in accepting the returned income of the assessee under section 143(3) - In our view, the ld. PCIT was not justified in adversely commenting on the said cash deposits of the assessee and adopting a divergent view where two views are possible that too on the issues of agricultural income and unsecured loans, which were not even parameters of selection of the case for scrutiny under CASS. The case laws relied upon by the ld. PCIT are distinguishable on the peculiar facts of the case. Respectfully following the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi ( 2005 (8) TMI 106 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] no presumption can be down by the PCIT that the matter has not been enquired into by the AO. Accordingly, we hold that the invocation of jurisdiction by the PCIT is not sustainable. The order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 is hereby set aside. Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA No. 120/JP/2022 - - - Dated:- 7-6-2022 - Dr. M.L. Meena, AM And Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM For the Assessee : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.) For the Revenue : Shri Avdhesh Kumar (CIT) ORDER PER DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M. This is an appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee, the AO has accepted the returned income in the assessment proceedings completed under section 143(3) at Rs. 6,34,250/-. 3. The ld. PCIT, in revisionary proceedings under section 263 noted from the assessment record that the AO has accepted the agricultural income of Rs. 5,01,200/- even when the assessee has failed to furnish the details/supporting details in respect of the agricultural income earned. The ld. PCIT has also questioned the issue of unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 2,81,63,419/- wherein fresh unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 19,10,000/- were raised by the assessee in addition to the old unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 2,68,47,290/-. In conclusion, he pointed out that an amount of Rs. 32,26,129/- on account of unsecured loans remained unexplained. 3.1. After considering the reply of the assessee, the ld. PCIT has held that the assessment order is erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the purpose of section 263 of the Act and liable to be revised under the explanation (2) clause (b) and (a) of section 263 of the Act and accordingly directed the AO to make necessary verification in this regard after affording reasonabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 263 deserves to be quashed. 4.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further argued that since the assessee has furnished complete details of unsecured loans, cash deposits made in the bank during demonetarization period along with supporting documentary evidences to the satisfaction of the AO and duly accepted by the AO while passing the assessment order, thus the AO has adopted one view on an issue having two divergent views and the ld. PCIT was not justified in setting aside the assessment order on this ground. In support, he placed reliance on the following case laws :- (i) CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. (2011) 202 Taxmann 130 (Mag.) Where assessment order has been passed by the AO after taking into account assessee s submissions and documents furnished by him and no material whatsoever has been brought on record by the CIT which showed that there was any discrepancy or falsity in evidences furnished by the assessee, the order of AO cannot be set aside for making deep inquiry only on the presumption and assumption that something new may come out. (ii) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 194 Taxman 57 (Del.) If a query is raised during course of scrutiny ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of queries in respect of the cash deposits in the bank made by the appellant during demonetarization period. The AO has noted in the assessment order that the assessee has explained the cash deposits made in the bank during demonetarization period as the cash sales out of the retail trading of readymade garments made during the Deepawali period being the festival season and a peak business period when winter wears were also sold. It is evident from the assessment order that the AO being satisfied with the reply of the assessee in respect of the cash deposits made during demonetarization period along with the corroborative documentary evidences vis- -vis cash sales of the readymade garments has accepted the returned income of the assessee. 6.1. The ld. PCIT although has admitted the fact that the case was selected under CASS for scrutiny of cash deposits made in the bank during demonetarization period, however he has raised queries in respect of agricultural income and unsecured loans shown by the assessee during the assessment year under consideration though these were not the parameters covered under the CASS for scrutiny purposes. It is seen that the ld. A/R has filed deta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
