JANATA ENTERPRISES,BHUBANESWAR vs. PCIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 83/CTK/2022Status: HeardITAT Cuttack09 February 2023AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not formed an opinion on the issue of demonetization period cash deposits, as there was no evidence of examination of the cash book or the issue. Therefore, the Principal CIT was justified in invoking Section 263 powers.

What were the facts?

The assessee's original assessment order was revised by the Principal CIT under Section 263. The revision pertained to cash deposits made during the demonetization period, for which the assessee could not provide details of SBN currency. The Assessing Officer had not explicitly discussed this issue in the assessment order or during the 142(1) notice proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the Principal CIT can revise an assessment order under Section 263 when the Assessing Officer has not explicitly examined a particular issue, even if it was part of the assessment proceedings?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA

For Appellant: Shri Purnendu Bhusan Mohanty
For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Hearing: 9/02Pronounced: 9/02

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Janata Janata Enterprises, Enterprises, Plot Plot Vs. Pr. CIT-1, No.57, No.57, janapath, janapath, Ashok Ashok Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Nagar, Nagar, Unit Unit-II, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. PAN/GIR No.AAAFJ 6599 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Purnendu Bhusan Mohanty Purnendu Bhusan Mohanty, AR Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 9/02 2/2023 Date of Pronouncement : 9/02 2/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld Pr. CIT passed u/s.263 of CIT passed u/s.263 of the Act dated 11.3.2022 .3.2022 in Appeal No. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2021 ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2021-22/1040605977(1) for the assessment year for the assessment year 2017- 18.

2.

Shri Purnendu Bhusan Mohanty Purnendu Bhusan Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and , ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue.

P a g e 1 | 4

3.

It was submitted by ld AR that the original assessment in the case of the assessee came to be completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2019. It was the submission that the order u/s.143(3) of the Act was the subject matter of revision u/s.263 by the Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar-1 on two grounds, first being in respect of demonetization period from 9.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 and the second issue was in respect of profitability. It was the submission that the issue of profitability had been dropped by the Pr. CIT after considering the reply of the assessee. It was the submission that in respect of issue of cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period, the assessee had deposited about Rs.34,08,480/- during the demonetization period. It was the submission that the assessee is unable to give the details of the SBN currency, which had been deposited in the bank account during the relevant period. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue and had not drawn any adverse inference. The issue having been considered by the Assessing Officer, the order u/s.263 of the Act was not permissible. It was the submission that the order u/s.263 passed by the Pr. CIT is liable to be cancelled.

4.

In reply, ld CIT DR vehemently supported the order of the Pr. CIT. It was the submission that the issue has not been considered by the Assessing Officer insofar as there is no discussion on the issue in the assessment order nor has there been any discussion on the issue in the notice issued

P a g e 2 | 4 u/s.142(1) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that cash book has not been examined by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the order u/s.263 is liable to be upheld.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order does not mention that the books of account have been produced before the Assessing Officer. All that the assessment order says is that some documents relating to books have been produced. A perusal of the reply to the notice u/s.142(1) which have been responded to in the electronic mode also does not say that the cash book have been produced before the Assessing Officer. In fact, there is no iota of evidence to suggest the cash deposited during the demonetization period has been examined. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has formed an opinion on the issue. This being so, we are of the view that the Pr. CIT is well within his powers to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Consequently, the order passed u/s. 263 is upheld.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 09/02/2023.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →