PAVAN PRABHUDYAL BHADADA,SHAHIBAUG, AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, INCOME TAX OFFICE, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (in short “Ld. PCIT”),
Ahmedabad-1 vide order dated 29.02.2024 passed for A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. That the revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the learned PCIT,
Ahmedabad-1 is bad in law and facts and therefore the impugned order passed by Ld.
PCIT is required to be quashed and the direction made therein are to be dropped.

found and seized, including data related to the assessee. The analysis of data revealed that the assessee had made deposits in an account maintained with the aforesaid society, amounting to Rs. 1,27,75,311/-. On perusal of assessment order, Principal CIT observed that while passing the assessment order the Assessing Officer accepted to the assessee’s claim that the assessee had no knowledge of transactions with M/s Renuka Mata
Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Ltd. and therefore such deposits were accepted as genuine by the Assessing Officer and no additions were made during the course of assessment proceedings. However, upon review of available information, Principal CIT observed that the assessee had made significant unexplained cash deposits into the society’s account, which were not disclosed in the books. In light of these findings, Principal
CIT was of the view that the Assessing Officer erred in failing to add this amount to the income, which was an unaccounted investment. Principal
CIT was also of the view that the assessment order was passed without proper examination of these issues. Accordingly, Principal CIT held that the Assessing Officer’s failure to make the necessary additions resulted in a loss of revenue, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

order passed under section 147 of the Act. In the reassessment proceeding after considering the submissions made by the assessee, the Assessing
Officer accepted the return of income filed by the assessee. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the reassessment order was passed based on the submission made by the assessee, it cannot be said that the order of the A.O. was erroneous, and therefore, invoking section 263 of the Act is incorrect and not in accordance with the law. Secondly, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that initiating the present 263
proceedings for the same issue more than once constitutes a multiplicity of proceedings, which is impermissible. Thirdly, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the reassessment proceedings, the A.O. issued a notice under section 142(1) to inquire about the relevant issue in response to which the assessee filed reply dated 07.03.2022, submitting the necessary information, including Form 26AS, Part-E, and details of AIR transactions from the Insight Portal. After reviewing this information, the A.O. held that the assessee’s contention appeared genuine, and as per the assessment order, the A.O. had applied his mind to the issue. Therefore, the order passed by the A.O. cannot be considered erroneous. Fourthly, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that Principal CIT did not grant a personal hearing nor requested any further information after the assessee’s submission dated 14/2/2024. Therefore, the 263 order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Lastly, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the transactions in the said bank accounts were actually undertaken by the father of the assessee without any information
Asst.Year –2016-17
- 4–
Asst.Year –2016-17
- 5–

hearing was issued by the assessing officer and no discussion on this crucial aspect is forming part of the assessment records. This is an aspect which has been submitted before us for the first time during the entire proceedings. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, we find no infirmity in the order of Principal CIT so as to call for any interference.

TANMAY, Sr. PSआदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant
2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent.
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)-
5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.