HARSHAD RAI MEHTA,NAYASARAK vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

It was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that the assessee is an individual, who is doing business of manufacture and retail sale of jewellery. It was the submission that the return filed by the assessee came to be taken on scrutiny and the assessment came to be completed wherein certain disallowance out of the expenses had been made. It was the submission that the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 26.12.2019 was the subject matter of a proposed revision by the ld. Pr.CIT, Bhubaneswar-1 on multiple issues which is mentioned in para 3 of the order of the ld. Pr.CIT. It was the submission that in the course of the assessment the AO had issued a notice u/s.142(1) of the Act wherein all these issues had been called for examination. The ld. AR drew our attention to the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 08.08.2019. It was the submission that in response to the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act and the consequential proceedings, replies have been filed by the assessee on 18.11.2019 & 25.11.2019, the cash book was specifically produced on 08.12.2019 and other registers were produced on 15.12.2019, gifts confirmations were produced on 12.03.2019. It was the submission that after examination of all these details only, the assessment order has been passed. It was the submission that this was also brought to the attention of the ld. Pr.CIT in reply to the show cause notice issued u/s.263 of the Act on 18.02.2022. It was the submission that without considering any of the explanation of the assessee the ld. Pr.CIT has taken a stand that the cash book copies are not on record whereas the cash book has been specifically produced on 08.12.2019. It was the submission that the ld. Pr.CIT in page 6 of his order holds that there are heavy transactions and heavy withdrawals which begged the scrutiny but the reply of the assessee does not indicate and nothing on record that this has been examined. In short, the approach of the AO has been casual, not diligent and without due application of mind. It was the submission that no specific error on the part of the assessee or in respect of any of the evidences produced by the assessee or the findings as arrived at by the ld. AO has been pointed out. It was the submission that the revisionary order is nothing but a direction by the ld. Pr.CIT to do a fresh fishing and roving enquiry into an already completed assessment. It was the submission that the order of the ld. Pr.CIT is liable to be quashed.

In reply, ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. Pr.CIT. It was the submission that there is no evidence available on record to show that the AO has looked into the documents e-filed by the assessee. It was the submission that this was the reason as to why the ld. Pr.CIT was compelled to hold that the approach of the AO has been casual and not diligent and the assessment has been done without proper application of mind. It was further submitted that in respect of gift received from the mother no evidence of cash availability with the mother has been filed. It was the submission that the order of the ld. Pr.CIT is liable to be upheld.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the e-filing that has been done by the assessee clearly shows that all evidences have been furnished before the AO. The questions as raised by the AO in the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act clearly shows that these queries are not standard queries but are queries after looking into the returns and the financial statements of the assessee. When a specific query has been raised and they are also being answered by the assessee, it would be preposterous to say that the AO has not examined the reply. The dates of all the issues which are being proposed by the ld. Pr.CIT for revision having already been called for by the AO and replies having been filed by the assessee and the same having been considered by the AO and just