SHRI R. KARTHIGEYAN (INDL.),NAMAKKAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NAMAKKAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 684/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 March 2022AY 2010-114 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted a detailed enquiry and verified the salary receipts and bank statements. Therefore, the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under section 263 was incorrect and liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, and based on AIR information regarding a bank deposit, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings. The AO, after considering the assessee's explanation and Form 16, concluded the assessment accepting the deposits as salary receipts.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT's revision order under section 263 was justified when the AO had already conducted a detailed enquiry and accepted the assessee's explanation regarding bank deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

Hearing: 16.03.2022Pronounced: 29.03.2022

O R D E R

PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem dated 20.03.2020 relevant to the assessment year 2010-11 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].

The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 60 days in filing 2. the appeal due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic and accordingly, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.

3.

Facts are, in brief, that the assessee has filed his return of income on 16.07.2010 admitting an income of ₹.7,18,133/-. As per the AIR information, the assessee has deposited a sum of ₹.7,79,901/- in saving bank account maintained at ICICI Bank. In response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income and also assessee’s father stated that his son was working in TCS as software engineer and receiving salary through his bank account. On perusal of the Form 16 issued by the TCS and bank statement in proof of receiving salary, the Assessing Officer has accepted that no suspicious cash was deposited in his bank account except salary receipts and concluded the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act.

4.

Subsequently, the ld. PCIT has issued notice under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as the Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry.

5.

Against the revision order under section 263 of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that after making detailed enquiry, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and prayed for quashing the revision order passed by the ld. PCIT.

6.

On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order passed by the ld. PCIT.

7.

We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, the Assessing Officer has made a detailed enquiry in respect of the very same amount of ₹.7,79,901/- and after considering the detailed explanation from the assessee, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The ld. PCIT, by exercising the power conferred upon section 263 of the Act, directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment as no enquiry was made. In our opinion, the order passed by the ld. PCIT is not correct. In fact, the Assessing Officer has made detailed enquiry with assessee’s father and verified Form 16 issued by the TCS and bank statements, etc. as required in this case and thereafter, the Assessing Officer has accepted that there was no suspicious cash deposit in assessee’s bank account except salary receipts and concluded the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act is liable to be quashed and accordingly, we quashed the order.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 29th March, 2022 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →