TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not thoroughly examined the above details nor obtained the relevant details / information / evidence from the assessee before accepting the explanation of assessee's son as well as the claim made by the assessee. We also observed that even before the revisionary proceedings, the assessee did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of his claim. Under these circumstances, we find merit in the observation of the Ld. Pr. CIT that the Ld. AO has passed the assessment order without making inquiries or verification which should have been done when the case is selected for scrutiny on the issue. CIT has rightly invoked the provisions of section 263 and thereby setting aside the assessment order passed by the AO with a direction to re-do the assessment in accordance with law after making all enquiries and verification of the issues mentioned in his order passed U/s. 263 of the Act after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, we hereby sustain the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT. Decided against assessee. - Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon ble Judicial Member And Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon ble Accountant Member For the Assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t he was not aware of the fact that order passed U/s. 263 of the Act is an appealable order before ITAT and missed the opportunity. 12. With this background the appeal against the impugned order passed U/s. 263 of the Act was filed on 17/4/2023 as against the due date of 15/03/2022 thus causing a delay of 337 days. Further, the affidavit of the regular Chartered Accountant is also enclosed which is self explanatory. 13 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee for filing the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit, we find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause to file the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 337 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of perishable vegetable ie., Tomatoes on commission basis. The assessee filed his e-return of income for AY 2017-18 on 17/12/2017 admitting a total income of Rs. 3,20,860/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify cash deposit during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uded that the assessment order passed U/s. 143(3), dated 17/12/2019 is required to be treated as an order which is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and accordingly, directed the Ld. AO to re-do the assessment in accordance with law after making necessary enquiries and verification of the issues discussed in his order. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT U/s. 263 of the Act is bad in law. 2. The order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT U/s. 263 of the Act is not a valid order in the eyes of law as inasmuch as the order U/s. 143(3) of the Act that was subjected to review, is by itself is an invalid order since it was passed by the Ld. AO in the name of the deceased assessee. 3. The Ld. Pr. CIT is not correct in setting aside the order passed U/s. 143(3) inasmuch as such order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, in this view of the matter, the order passed U/s. 263 of the Act is liable to be set-aside. 4. For these and other grounds that are to be u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cash deposits of Rs. 1,86,15,610/- were made out of the business receipts. The Ld. DR also submitted that during the revision proceedings, the contention of the assessee is that the cash was received from various parties towards sale proceeds and deposited in the bank account and the assessee gets only commission. However, before the Ld. Pr. CIT the assessee did not furnish any details of persons to whom he sold Tomotos and received cash as well as the details of the farmers to whom the amount was claimed to have been transferred after holding the commission. Considering all these facts, the Ld. Pr. CIT came to a conclusion that the Ld. AO neither obtained examined the primary evidences to prove the genuineness of the sources for cash deposits nor the assessee furnished the same in support of his claim. Even before the Ld. Pr. CIT the assessee has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his claim. The Ld. DR therefore pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT is in accordance with law and prayed to uphold the same. 7. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. The only issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
