TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been admitted by the ld. Pr.CIT as well. Not only such certificates were produced before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings on the basis of which he got satisfied and did not make any disallowance, these were also filed before the CIT in the revision proceedings. He did not find anything amiss in them and still preferred to direct the AO to verify their veracity. Under such circumstances, we fail to comprehend as to how the assessment order can be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The position would have been different if the AO had accepted the contention of the assessee of being covered under rule 6DD(g) without any support of the certificates. Here is a case in which the assessee furnish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in this case on 25.03.2019. Though the reassessment order was passed on 29.12.2016, the relevant assessment order for the purposes of advances from customers is the original assessment order, which was passed on 21.03.2014. The period of two years from the end of financial year in which the order was passed, came to end on 31.03.2016. As the impugned order has been passed in the year 2019, it is therefore, held to be barred by limitation on the issue of advances from customers. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order on this score as well. Assessee appeal is allowed. - ITA No. 231/PUN/2020 - - - Dated:- 6-6-2022 - SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by: Shri Girish Ladda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved that the AO initiated reassessment proceedings on the strength of cash payments amounting to Rs.1,06,72,500/- made by the assessee in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act, as under : Sr. No. Name of party Cash payment as per Notice u/s.263 Actual cash payment Amount already disallowed by AO Balance cash payment allowed by AO after verification of affidavits of payee, ID proofs 1 Hasan Md. Pathan, Pakahrsangvi 412500 412500 0 412500 2 Rajan Jaganth Sutar, Khandgaon 1600000 160000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 175000 175000 0 13 Shivaji Salunke, Khandgaon 0 400000 0 400000 Total Rs. 11842500 9672500 1100000 8572500 Total wrongly mentioned in Notice u/s.163 10672500 4. While finalizing the assessment u/s.143(3) rw.s.147, the AO disallowed the transactions at Sl. Nos. 5,6,7, 8 and 12 totalling to Rs.11.00 lakh only. The assessee stated before the ld. Pr.CIT that the remaining persons, to whom the cash payments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e payments under consideration have been made to the residents of these villages as have been admitted by the ld. Pr.CIT as well. Not only such certificates were produced before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings on the basis of which he got satisfied and did not make any disallowance, these were also filed before the ld. Pr.CIT in the revision proceedings. He did not find anything amiss in them and still preferred to direct the AO to verify their veracity. Under such circumstances, we fail to comprehend as to how the assessment order can be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The position would have been different if the AO had accepted the contention of the assessee of being covered under rule 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Rs.11 lacs, being, the amount which, in his opinion, contravened the provisions of section 40A(3). Thus, it is apparent that the question of verification of advances from customer totaling to Rs.89,60,500 was not the subject matter of re-assessment concluded by means of an order on 29.12.2016. Once the issue of advances from customers is held to be not a part of re-assessment proceedings, naturally, it will pertain to the original assessment proceedings. 7. The limitation for revision is contained in sub-section (2) of section 263 of the Act, being, a period of two years from the end of financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. Thus, an order u/s 263 is required to be passed within a period of two years fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
