9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 at an income of Rs. 4,76,150/- against returned income of Rs 3,00,830/- declared in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 18.12.2018 after making addition of Rs. 1,75,322/ on account undisclosed interest on savings/deposits. The appellant's case was reopened after recording reasons and obtaining necessary approval from Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 60,00,000/- in her savings bank account maintained with the Oriental Bank of Commerce during the financial year 2010-11 and that no return had been filed for the year under consideration under section 139(1) of the Act. 3. That the proposal for revision of assessment, order dated 26.12.2018 was submitted by the erstwhile Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5), Zira through the erstwhile Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. Range 3, Ferozepur. On perusal of the proposal and the assessment record, the Pr. CIT observed that the assessment framed in this case was erroneously and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, a show cause notice which was based on these observations drawn from the perusal of assessment record, is issued to the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not claimed by Sh. Charanjit Singh (being land on his name) viz. his bank account statement/confirmation in respect of the aforesaid transaction were not filed during the course of assessment proceedings. In view of the facts discussed above, the assessment framed in this case seems erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In this context, I am directed by the worthy Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Amritsar to request you to show-cause as to why the assessment so framed may not be cancelled to be made afresh as per the provisions of section 263 of the l. T. Act, 1 9 6 1 after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. The case was reopened on the reasons that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 60,00,000 in her saving bank account maintained with the Oriental Bank of Commerce during the financial year 2010-11 and that no voluntary return has been filed for the year under consideration. Thus, it was incumbent on the Assessing Officer to examine and inquire into the facts in the light of submissions of the assessee so as to determine the correctness of the claim of the assessee which is the very purpose of assessment. The Pr.CIT note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk account of the assessee amounting to Rs. 60,00,000/- and time deposit of Rs. 30,00,000 during the year under consideration." The Ld. AO during the course of re-assessment proceedings had verified all the details pertaining to the case of the assessee. Hence, it is evident that the Ld. AO has passed the assessment order only after due verification of the facts and circumstances of the case of the assessee and hence, took a POSSIBLE VIEW of all the facts of the case and only then made additions to the tune of Rs. 1,75,322/- vide his order dated 26.12.2018 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 4. It is submitted that the proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act has been initiated merely on the basis of DIFFERENCE OF OPINION and, it is humbly submitted that a difference of opinion cannot be taken as a ground to determine the order passed by the Ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Reliance in this has been placed on the judgments of various ITAT Bench in the following cases wherein, it has been held that the action of Worthy PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act is bad in law where, the Ld. AO has applied his mind during the course of assessment proceedings and has taken a possible v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MODI as reported in 77 Taxmann.com 15(SC) Section 68 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Gift) -Assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 - Assessee received certain amount as gifts from his father and sister who were non-residents in India - Assessing Officer after making detailed enquiries, took a view that assessee had duly proved identity, source and creditworthiness of donors - Commissioner, however, passed a revisional order under section 263 directing Assessing Officer to enquire into capacity of donors and to decide about genuineness of gifts afresh - It was noted that Commissioner in his order of revision, did not indicate any doubt in respect of genuineness of evidence produced by assessee - Moreover, satisfaction of Assessing Officer on basis of documents produced was not shown to be erroneous - High Court by impugned order held that it was a case where a view had been taken by Assessing Officer after making proper enquiry and, thus. Tribunal was justified in setting aside impugned revisional order - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 21 fin favour of assessee] Copy of the judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if the inquiry was termed as inadequate, following the decision in M/s Sunbeam Auto Ltd (supra), "that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under Section 263 of the said Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter." No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed". Copy of the judgment is placed at page no. 76-78 of the judgment set." synopsis -2 "1. In continuation to our submission filed earlier on legal grounds as well as merits of the case, we are hereby submitting our further submission in the case of the assessee as under: a. It is submitted that the assessee is an individual, who has been earning income from salary. b. For the relevant assessment year, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 148 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') after recording the reasons for reopening the case of the assessee u/s. 148 of the Act. The reasons recorded u/s. 148 of the Act states as under: "4. As per the information available on ITS detail with the Income Tax Department, the assessee has deposited Rs. 60,00,000/- in cash in Oriental Bank of Commerce and time deposit of Rs. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee. f. It is pertinent to mention here that the SCN dated 05.03.2021 was issued to the assessee (Copy placed at page no. 18-19 of the paper book) after getting proposal for revision of assessment from Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Zira as evident from order u/s. 263 of the Act. Relevant page 21 of the paper book. Thereafter, order dated 25.03.2021 was passed u/s. 263 of the Act, wherein, the case of the assessee was selected for revision proceedings. 2. It is submitted that we have already filed our submissions on legal grounds and merits on 28.02.2023. However, it is submitted that the concerned issue of the assessee is otherwise covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Jaipur Bench of ITAT in the case of Sh. Pappu Ram Saran in ITA No. 1303/JP/2018 which has been followed in the case of Sh. Jagir Singh by the Hon'ble Chandigarh Bench of ITAT in ITA No. 331/CHD/2019. And, also there is a recent judgment of Chandigarh Bench in the case of Sh. Sukhwinder Singh in ITA No. 930/CHD/2018 in which the same judgments of 'Om Plantation' have been followed. 3. In the case of Sh. Pappu Ram Saran in ITA No. 1303/JP/2018, the appeal of the assessee was allowed on the basis that there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee, as source of income, other than the income disclosed by the assessee in her return of income for the disputed cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. Meaning thereby that the source of cash deposit in the appellant bank account was out of sale consideration of agriculture land, and it has been duly accepted by the AO after verification of the documentary evidences filed before him as above. In our view, in the present case, all the facts have been independently verified by the Ld. AO. Thus, there appears to be merely a change of the opinion of the Ld. Pr. CIT in observing that there was incorrect application of mind by the AO by not carrying proper enquiry in the case of the assessee, and thus, a Show-Cause Notice ('SCN') dated 05.03.2021 was issued u/s. 263 of the Act to the assessee (APB, Pgs.18- 19), on account of difference of opinion is bad in law. 9. In the case of Sh. Pappu Ram Saran (Supra) in ITA No. 1303/JP/2018, the ITAT Jaipur Bench has allowed appeal of the assessee by observing that there was a direct nexus between the transaction of sale and deposit in bank account of the assessee vide para 6 of the judgment. Further, in the case of Sh. Jagir Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
