9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssues as may be considered together with the issues discussed in order. 3. It is therefore prayed that above order passed by Pr. CIT u/s. 263 may please be quashed or modified as your honours deem it proper. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 3. The assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2018-19 on 31-08-2018 declaring total income of Rs. 1,23,69,720/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act was finalized on 28-05-2021 determining total income at Rs. 1,23,69,720/-. The Pr. CIT observed that during the course of survey proceedings, a diary was found and the statement recorded during the survey, the assessee accepted unaccounted income of Rs. 54,14,166/- which were not reflected in the regular books of accounts. The Pr. CIT further observed that the assessee declared gross income of Rs. 1,25,29,720/- in the return of income filed for the year under consideration including additional income of Rs. 55,14,000/- declared during the course of survey. During the course of survey proceedings, the assessee admitted the cash payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereby failed to explain source of excess stock admitted in the course of survey. The onus of explaining source of excess stock as per provisions of section 69B of the Act always lies with the assessee. The assessee failed to submit details such as names/identity of the sellers from whom chemicals were purchased for the trading, when it was purchased, purchase bills, mode of payment for such purchases, source of payment for such purchases etc and names/identity of the purchasers to whom chemicals were sold for the trading, when it was sold, sale bills, mode of receipt for such sale consideration, etc. and details of brokerage income from whom received, the mode of receipt and evidences thereof etc. (as per page no. 12 of the Section 263 order dated 19.03.2024 of the PCIT) 3.4 The Pr. CIT held that under the provisions of section 69A of the Act, the initial onus by explaining source of money is cast upon the assessee. The assessee cannot shift its onus on the Assessing Officer without placing valid piece of evidence. Thus, in the present case, the assessee had unaccounted money for which the assessee had no explanation with corroborative evidences which were required to establish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k. The Assessing Officer also called upon the trading receivables exceeding Rs. 1,00,000/-. The questionnaire to the notice dated 12-04-2021 issued u/s. 142(1) specifically called upon the details which is mentioned in query/questionnaire no. 20 related to impounded material i.e. annexure BF-1. The assessee has replied the same vide letter dated 02-05- 2021 and as relates to the said query has given the supporting documentary evidences. The ld. A.R. submitted that the issue was already verified by the Assessing Officer and has rightly been dealt by the Assessing Officer. The order of the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 is only that of second opinion and there is no prejudice to the interest of revenue even if the normal tax rate has been applied by the Assessing Officer. 6. The ld. D.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer was very well aware of the submission taken into consideration during the survey proceedings and in fact during the survey proceedings impounded material i.e. annexure BF-1 categorically has been admitted and in fact the assessee without any hesitation offered the said component to the income. But if the survey would have not been taken into place, the assessee would have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us decision thereby not invoking Section 68 along with section 115BBE of the Act. Thus, the observation made by the Pr. CIT is second opinion which is not allowable while invoking Section 263 of the Act. The decisions relied by the ld. D.R. in para 8 has categorically mentioned that the assessee has remedy by way of right to appeal against orders prejudicial to it and the same can be dealt with in appeal only. The Tribunal further observed that the PCIT in revisionary provisions u/s. 263 of the Act cannot adjudicate/deal with issues decided by the Assessing Officer to the purchases of the assessee. After giving the said finding, the Tribunal has gone into the merits of the assessment proceedings which is not the scope/purview of section 263 of the Act and in what context the Tribunal has gone into the merits is not explained by the ld. D.R. at this juncture. In case of Shiv Shakti Enterprise (supra) where the Tribunal has directly come to the merits about the applicability of Section 69A read with Section 115BBE but has not discussed the issue related to the proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act. Thus, these case laws relied by the ld. D.R. will not be applicable under the present procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
