TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 263, merely because he has a different opinion in matter; it is only in case of 'lack of inquiry' that such a cause of action can be open. See NARAIN SINGLA case [ 2015 (10) TMI 2371 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] Thus merely difference of opinion by itself would not give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under Section 263 of the said Act. Therefore, the impugned order held to be bad in law and the same is as such quashed - See ANIL KUMAR SHARMA [ 2010 (2) TMI 75 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : S/Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, P.N. Arora P.K. Singla, Adv. For the Respondent : Sh. S.R. Kaushik, CIT DR ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Amritsar dated 17.03.2022 in respect of Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the Worthy Pr. CIT has erred in assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act and thereby setting aside the order to the file of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specifically asked the assessee about the source of deposit of Rs. 23,33,250/- as per query at Sr. No. 4 of the notice u/s 142(1) dated 26.11.2019 and assessee has filed the detailed reply in response thereto. After considering the reply and examining the other record the assessment has been framed, accepting the returned income accordingly. The Ld. AR contended that the assessment so framed after taking explanation of the appellant assessee on the deposits so made in the bank, could not be said as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Counsel filed a written synopsis which reads as under: 1. The Appellant is a practicing advocate and filing its return of income declaring the income generated on account of professional receipts in due course. During the year under consideration, the Appellant has deposited Rs. 23,33,250/- in his bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank (Account No. 0313000100179450) out of the cash in hand as per the cash book of the Assessee wherein receipts are on account of professional receipts and cash withdrawals from bank. The said facts were duly explained during the re-assessment proceedings as there were specific queries raised by AO in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hdrawals during the year under consideration. 4. Therefore, the view of the Pr. CIT that the cash deposited by the Appellant in his bank account if out of the undisclosed sources is completely vague and baseless, also, Further, the Ld. AO has genuineness of the cash deposited in the bank account of Rs. 23,33,250/- after a conscious and independent application of mind. Hence, in all such circumstances, the application of provision of section 263 of the Act only on account of difference in opinion of Pr. CIT is invalid and uncalled for. LEGAL ARGUMENTS OF THE CASE 5. At the outset, we would like invite your Honor s kind attention to the fact that the case of the Assessee re-opened u/s 148 for the sole reason of Deposit of cash in bank account , also, there were specific queries raised by AO in this regard vide questionnaire dated 26.11.2019 DIN: ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2019- 20/1021090304(1) in Point 4 (placed at Page No. 5-6 of the Paper Book). The Applicant has duly filed the detailed reply along with the supporting documents dated 06.12.2019 (placed at Page No. 8 of the Paper Book) and the same were found satisfactory. It is merely the assumption of the Pr. CIT that no en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lace - Held, no - Whether when Assessing Officer was fully aware of matter, he had appraised evidences filed by assessee and then had formed a view to accept same, Commissioner was unjustified in invoking jurisdiction under section 263 - Held, yes [Paras 9 10] [In favour of assessee]. Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue (Scope of jurisdiction) - Assessment year 2011-12 - Whether if there was an enquiry, even inadequate, that would not, by itself, give occasion to Commissioner to pass order under section 263, merely because he has a different opinion in matter; it is only in case of 'lack of inquiry' that such a cause of action can be open - Held, yes [Para 15] [In favour of assessee] CIT vs. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA as reported in 335 ITR 83 (Del HC) In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the Tribunal arrived at a conclusive finding that, though the assessment order does not patently indicate that the issue in question had been considered by the Assessing Officer, the record showed that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind. Once such application of mind is discernable from the recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tisfaction of the AO on verification of the source of cash deposit by way of raising specific quarry in the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the act, on the matter, he has accepted the returned income of the assessee. 7. From the bank statement (APB-II, Pgs.15 to 20), It is evident that the cash deposit of Rs. 23,33,250/- is scattered over the entire year and it is not at all the case of one time deposit or bulk deposits. Thus, it is clear that the quantum of deposit and withdrawals from the bank are very nominal and nothing to suspicious by the PCIT as contended by the Ld. AR. The month-wise chart of cash Deposit and Withdrawals is reproduced as under: Month Cash Deposit Cash Withdrawal April-11 55900 896000 May-11 327400 305000 June-11 24000 65000 Jul-11 122300 64000 August-11 67650 95080 Sep-11 80500 46000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
