TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been accepted and therefore in our considered view the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court is clearly applicable to the assessee s case. Accordingly we hold that the PCIT is not justified in initiating the impugned proceedings under Section 263 of the Act when the assessee has opted to settle the dispute under DTVSV scheme. We therefore quash the order of PCIT and allow the appeal in favour of the assessee. - ITA No. 522/Bang/2022 - - - Dated:- 17-11-2022 - Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President and Ms. Padmavathy S., Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Balram R. Rao, Adv. For the Revenue : Ms. Neera Malmotra, CIT-DR. ORDER Padmavathy, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT, Hubali passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 23.03.2022 for AY 2017-18. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: - 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conditions precedent being absent the proceedings-initiated U/s.263 of the Act was opposed to law and the order passed U/s.263 is liable to be cancelled. 2. On the facts there being no error muc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vegetable oil. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2017-18 on 05.11.2017 declaring a total income of Rs.1,46,760/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for and especially verifying the cash deposits during the demonetization period. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was duly served upon the assessee. The AO vide notice under Section 142(1) of the Act called for details such as computation of income, P L Account, Balance Sheet and bank account statement. The bank account details of the assessee were obtained under Section 133(6) of the Act. The AO noticed certain discrepancies/violations on perusal of the details furnished by the assessee. There was a difference of Rs.11,36,909/- noticed by the AO in the closing cash balance of the assessee as of 31.12.2016. The AO called for further details in this regard. The assessee vide letter dated 25.11.2019 explained and reconciled the discrepancy of Rs.11,36,909/- which will result in an unexplained difference of Rs.92,838/-. Relevant statement of discrepancy and the reconciliation are reproduced below: - Particulars During Verification on 19/11/2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O should have analysed the bank accounts and trend of cash receipts and examined the cash sales and the stock register during the specified period. The AO should have also examined the cash sales during the specified period and ascertained the cash in hand as on 8.11.2016 after examination of books, specially by obtaining the cash book. The Assessing Officer has not done so. The Assessing Officer has not conducted necessary inquiries and has not made the additions required as per law. 3. It has also been observed that the assessee has made cash payment of Rs.46,678/- on 12.06.2016 towards inward carriage which is in contravention of Section 40A(3). However, this has not been disallowed by the Assessing Officer. 5. The PCIT issued show cause notice in response to which the assessee made submissions wherein it was stated that he has applied for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas (DTVSV) scheme and has filed a letter before the CIT(A) for withdrawal of his appeal filed against the order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee further submitted that the AO has already examined the details pertaining to the cash deposits during the assessment proceedings and has made the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cceptable at this stage. The assessee has not given the complete facts regarding his declaration under the VsV Scheme. As discussed in the last para, the Assessing Officer will examine the assessee's claim of declaration under the VsV Scheme and decide the claim in accordance with law. 7. The learned A.R. reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. The main contention of the learned A.R. is that the issue of cash deposits made during the demonetization was opted for DTVSV and the assessee has filed Form 4. Considering this the learned A.R. submitted that the same issue cannot be subject matter of revision proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. The learned A.R. in this regard relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case Gopalakrishnan Rajkumar vs. PCT (2022) 445 ITR 557 (Mad). On mderits the learned A.R. submitted that the AO had called for specific details with respect to the cash deposits made during the demonetization period and has considered all the bank accounts in the name of the assessee for this purpose. The fact that the AO had called for details with regard to the discrepancies found with respect to the details submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Resolution Panel under section 144C of the Income-tax Act as on the specified date, the amount of tax payable by the appellant if the Dispute Resolution Panel was to confirm the variation proposed in the draft order; (E) in a case where Dispute Resolution Panel has issued any direction under sub-section (5) of section 144C of the Income-tax Act and the Assessing Officer has not passed the order under sub-section (13) of that section on or before the specified date, the amount of tax payable by the appellant as per the assessment order to be passed by the Assessing Officer under subsection (13) thereof; (F) in a case where an application for revision under section 264 of the Income-tax Act is pending as on the specified date, the amount of tax payable by the appellant if such application for revision was not to be accepted: Provided that in a case where Commissioner (Appeals) has issued notice of enhancement under section 251 of the Income-tax Act on or before the specified date, the disputed tax shall be increased by the amount of tax pertaining to issues for which notice of enhancement has been issued: Provided further that in a case where the dispute in relation to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se expressly provided in sub-section (3) of section 5 or section 6, noting contained in this Act shall be construed as conferring any benefit, concession or immunity on the declarant in any proceedings other than those in relation to which the declaration has been made. 45. The intention of the parliament enacting the of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, is to bring a closure of disputes in respect of tax arrears. Whether the petitioner had correctly or wrongly availed the benefit of section 57(F) of the Income-tax Act or not cannot be re-opened once again under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 46. Once the petitioners had opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, the proceedings initiated under section 263 have to go. If on the other hand the respective petitioners had not filed Form 1 and 2 or not accepted with the issue of Form 3, the Impugned Notice seeking to re-open the assessment under section 263 of the Incometax Act, 1961 could be justified. 47. The Finance Minister in her speech on 1-2-2020 announced the the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to bring down the litigation. The Government intended to reduce the li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
