TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll be illegal and without jurisdiction. The Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to start fishing and roving enquiries in matters or orders which are already concluded. Since the AO has already examined the case and made complete enquiry wherein no infirmity appears then in that case, the Ld PCIT was not justified in passing the impugned revision order. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA 83/Jodh/2022 - - - Dated:- 20-3-2023 - SHRI KUL BHARAT , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri Mahendra Gargieya CA For the Revenue : Shri O. P. Meena , CITDR ORDER PER : SHRI MANISH BORAD , AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 15-07-2019 despite there being complete application of mind by the AO on the subjected issue and it was nothing but a case of change of opinion and /or suspicion, based on which, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 is not permissible. The impugned order dated 26-03- 2022 therefore lacks valid jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and hence, the same kindly be quashed. 6.1 The ld PCIT seriously erred in law and on facts of the case in holding that the source of cash deposit of Rs.17,86,000/- during the demonetization period could not be explained by the appellant which being completely contrary to the provision of law and facts available on record, such finding and the decision of the PCIT deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji Others (1987) 167 ITR 472, the delay is condoned. 3.1 Apropos Grounds of appeal of the assessee, the AO while making assessment noted that the reply of the assessee was considered and the cash deposited at Rs.17,86,000/- in the bank account pertains out of loan taken from the F.D. and accumulated saving and retirements and thus as per the above facts the source of deposit is explained by the assessee and no addition is made in this account. The AO further noted that on going through the details, it is found that the assessee was in Govt. Service and he has received pension from the Bank at Rs.2,85,099/- and he has also received interest on fixed deposits a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment order and restored back to the file of the AO with the direction to pass the assessment order afresh by providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3.3 Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. PCIT, the assessee carried the matter before this Bench praying therein that the issue of cash deposit of Rs.17,86,000/- was duly examined by the AO while making assessment and he did not find any infirmity in the submission of the assessee. 3.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld.PCIT. 3.5 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The scope of revision proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act was examined by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in that category. The expression prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue , the Supreme Court held, it is of wide import and is not confined to a loss of tax. What is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is explained in the judgment of the Supreme Court (headnote) : The phrase prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, for example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
