TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .7,00,000/- had been introduced in cash as Capital in the firm, is not acceptable. Because, the LIC disburses Loan through banking channel, then why a prudent man will withdraw the amount in cash and introduce it as Capital in the firm? If the assessee wanted to introduce the impugned amount then he could have directly issued a cheque. Therefore, we agree with the ld.CIT that the explanation is not acceptable. Hence, the ld.CIT was right in holding that the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial. Similarly, the Assessing Officer has not verified the cash deposits in the impugned bank account. Thus CIT(A) has rightly invoked the jurisdiction u/s.263 - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.2679/PUN/2016 - - - Dated:- 23-6-2022 - SHRI S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Ld. CIT failed to apply his mind to the facts of the case. The action taken under S. 263 is unwarranted. It be quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT has not passed any conclusive orders under S. 263 of the Act. The Ld. CIT directed the A. 0. to verify the issues which were already verified by the A.O. The action under S. 263, therefore, was unwarranted. It be quashed. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the appeal against the order under S. 263 delayed. The assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the limitation. The separate application for condonation of delay supported by sworn affidavit will be filed. In view of this it is pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entative (DR) for the Revenue and on the basis of material available on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partner in Anusaya Construction deriving income from Interest and share of profit. For the A.Y. 2009-10, assessee filed return of Income on 18.05.2009 showing total income of Rs.8,96,490/-. The ITO completed scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act accepting returned income. The Commissioner of Income Tax had passed an order under section 263 after giving opportunity to the assessee. The assessee has filed an appeal against the said Order u/s.263 of the Act. 3. We have heard the Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue and perused the records. In this case, the Ld.Commissioner of Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the explanation submitted by the assessee was not acceptable. 3.2 We agree with the ld.CIT, that the explanation of the assessee that he had obtained Loan from LIC and then Rs.7,00,000/- had been introduced in cash as Capital in the firm, is not acceptable. Because, the LIC disburses Loan through banking channel, then why a prudent man will withdraw the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- in cash and introduce it as Capital in the firm? If the assessee wanted to introduce the impugned Rs.7,00,000/-, then he could have directly issued a cheque. Therefore, we agree with the ld.CIT that the explanation is not acceptable. Hence, the ld.CIT was right in holding that the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial. Similarly, the Assessing Officer has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said Act as to why these additional expenses claimed not to be treated as an unexplained expenditure. Such withdrawal was accepted by the AO and the proceedings under section 69C were ordered to be closed. The CIT, in such circumstances, exercised revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the said Act but the High Court, set aside the Commissioner's order on the basis that the view taken by the AO was a possible view and revisional jurisdiction ought not to have been exercised merely because there was another possible view of the matter. 29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order by holding that there was nothing wrong in the exercise of revisional powers particularly because the CIT felt that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Commissioner which had directed the AO to carry a thorough and detailed inquiry. 31. For all the aforesaid reasons we set aside the ITAT's order dated 11-2-2015 and answer the substantial questions of law as framed, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, we make it clear that the observations in this Judgment and Order need not influence the AO in making a fresh order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The AO will have to decide the matter on its own merits and in accordance with the law. 4. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the ld.CIT(A) has rightly invoked the jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the order u/s 263 of the Act, and grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
