TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns have been made by Ld. PCIT with regard to failure of assessee to substantiate the source of deposits are superfluous and have no binding effect on Ld. AO as Ld. AO is expected to only comply with the operative part of the order of the Ld. PCIT which merely directs the Ld. AO to add short amount Rs.4,98,576/- to the addition made by Ld. AO u/s 69A of the Act. The enquiry and verification only to the extent of this amount has been directed by the Ld. PCIT and to that extent there is no illegality in the exercise of powers of Section 263 of the Act by Ld. PCIT. Whatever contentions have been raised on behalf of the assessee as to the nature of its business leading to deposit of cash throughout the year or that there was no disproportionate or exceptional high deposit in the period of demonetization are not issues covered and examined by the Ld. PCIT and assessee has already availed the remedy to challenge the addition on merits by preferring appeal against the order dated 10.12.2019. The judgments relied are quite distinguishable on facts as in the present case the admitted state of affairs is that there was factual error committed by Ld. AO and same apparently caused loss of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king channel but individual customers pay in cash. Further the travel agents to whom services are being provided, mostly they also pay in cash. These cash receipts from the various customers are deposited by the assessee in his bank account. Further sometimes cash is being deposited by the customers and sub agents directly in the assessee s bank account. For the same, assessee has submitted copy of cash book and bank statements. 4. However, Ld. Revisional Authority considered the reply to be having no substance and observed on merits as follows: 9.2 On perusal of reply, it is found that assessee has not submitted details of customers and sub agents who has directly deposited cash in assessee s bank account. In absence of details of customers who has directly deposited cash in bank account, the cash receipts during the year cannot be verified. 9.3 Hence from above mentioned facts it is clear that difference of Rs 4,98,576/- (Rs 3,05,73,196/- - Rs 3,00,74,620/-) as cash receipt deposited in the bank account cannot be verified in absence of complete details. This issue also needs to be examined further. 10 The above fact clearly shows that AO had not made proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id. 5. That the appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add, alter, amend, vary, modify and/or withdraw any ground (s) of appeal at or before the time of hearing. 7. Heard and perused the record. 8. On behalf of assessee the primary contention of Ld. AR was that Ld. Revisional Authority has fallen in error in exercising powers u/s 263 of the Act by exceeding jurisdiction as Section 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake committed by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that in fact the show-cause notice itself was defective as wrong facts with regard to amount allegedly under assessed was mentioned wrongly. It was specifically submitted that while in the notice amount of Rs.7,05,130/- was said to be under assessed while passing the order u/s 263 of the Act amount of Rs.4,98,576/- was found to be under assessed and directed to be added. 9. Ld. AR made extensive arguments surrounding the nature of work of the assessee and referred to judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. International Travel House Ltd. (2010) 194 Taxman 324 (Del.) and submitted that where the business of the assessee i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2022) 141 taxmann.com 83 (Punjab Haryana) (21-04-2022); 14. PCIT vs S. N. Tradelink (P) Ltd. by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court (2022) 145 taxmann.com 73 (Gujarat) (13-06- 2022). 10. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that there is no error in the findings of Ld. PCIT as the assessee cannot dispute the fact that there was under assessment of the income and there was lack of enquiry on the part of Ld. AO in reaching the correct figure required to be added. 11. Giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record and the submissions made it is relevant to observe at the outset that during the hearing and on queries by the Bench, it revealed that the assessee has separately challenged the assessment order dated 10.12.2019 and the appeal is pending before the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal u/s 250 of the Act. It means that as far as the question of facts and law with regard to the extent to which the assessee is able to explain the source of cash deposited, during FY 2016-17, is still to be adjudicated and attain finality before the Ld. Tax Authorities below. 12. Then, here in the present case on limited question of fact Ld. PCIT exercised its jurisdiction u/s 263 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
