BHAGWANT TRADING COMPANY,PANDHARPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 4, PUNE

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It emerges dh that the learned PCIT’s revision direction herein term the Assessing Officer’s regular assessment dated 28.03.2019 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue on account of his failure to make necessary enquiries for ascertaining reasons for withdrawals of huge cash, low profit,

We find with the able assistance coming from both the learned representatives’ side that the Assessing Officer’s assessment herein had indeed examined the assessee's cash withdrawals at length. Learned CIT-DR could hardly dispute that this assessee is a firm engaged in general merchant commission agent [Kacchi Adat] of “Bedana” wherein the Assessing Officer has duly recorded his findings after issuing section 143(2) r.w.s.142(1) notice(s) that the alleged huge cash withdrawals had been mainly used for payments to farmers for “Bedana” transactions. And that this is an instance of cash withdrawals than cash deposits. That being the case, we find no merit in the Revenue’s stand supporting the PCIT’s revision directions that the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's explanation without carrying-out detailed enquiries. We quote hon'ble apex court landmark decision in Malabar Industrial Company Limited vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) that an assessment has to be both an erroneous one as well as causing prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, simultaneously before the prescribed authority i.e., CIT or PCIT, as the case may be, decides to set his section 263 revision jurisdiction in motion. We are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer’s assessment herein could hardly be held as satisfying both the foregoing parameters once he has not only carried-out detailed enquiries but also given

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.