CHANDRAKANT RAMAKANT PISE,SOLAPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-4, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 267/PUN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 December 2022AY 2011-125 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision directions were justified as the Assessing Officer had not conducted adequate inquiries regarding the cash deposits against agricultural sales, including examination of expenses and revenue records.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed cash deposits as agricultural income. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) initiated revision proceedings under Section 263, holding the Assessing Officer's reassessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to lack of detailed inquiry into cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer's inquiry into cash deposits claimed as agricultural income was adequate, and if the PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH,

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & G.D.PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V. Gujarathi
For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar – DR

Per S.S.Godara, JM: These assessee’s twin appeals arise against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune’s separate orders dated 31-03-2021 and 30-03-2021 in Din & Order Nos. ITBA/REV/F /REV5/2020-21/1032114197(1) and No.ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2020- 21/1031970538(1) for A.Yrs.2011-12 & 2013-14; respectively in proceedings u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee raises the following identical substantial grounds in both these appeals :

1.

“1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune 4 has erred in passing order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 was neither erroneous nor it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The appellant requests your honour to kindly drop the proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

Without prejudice to the first ground of appeal, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune 4 has erred in passing the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that there was no lack of proper inquiry and verification as alleged by the Assessing Officer. The appellant requests your honour to kindly drop the proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3.

The appellant hereby reserves the right to add, amend, alter, or raise any additional ground or grounds of appeal or delete or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal."

3. Relevant facts qua these assessee’s appeals are found to be in a very narrow compass indeed wherein the learned PCIT revision directions terming the Assessing Officer’s corresponding regular re- assessments, both dated 08-12-2017, as erroneous ones causing prejudice to the interest of revenue, on the ground that he had not carried out detailed inquiries regarding the taxpayer’s cash deposits, which were claimed and accepted as representing his agricultural income in both these assessment years. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved.

4. Learned counsel vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the PCIT herein has erred in law and on facts in setting into motion his section 263 revision jurisdiction alleging lack of inquiry at the Assessing Officer’s end despite the fact that the latter had framed section 143(3) r.w.s.147 re-assessments on the very issue of verification of cash deposits only. Mr. Gujarathi highlighted the fact that this assessee had claimed to have sold his agricultural produce in both these assessment years which was rightly accepted by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, this is certainly not an instance of lack of inquiry or inadequate inquiry, as the case may be, as alleged at the Revenue’s behest in light of the PCIT’s revision directions.

5.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival contentions and find no merit in assessee’s stand. We first of all find that apart from lack of inquiry or erroneous decision taken by the assessing officer concerned attracting section 263 revision jurisdiction; simultaneously, in light of M/s.Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC), the legislature has also inserted Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01-06-2016 that the foregoing former limb would also include inadequate inquiries as well in light of sub-clauses (a) and (b) thereof. We further make it clear that the learned counsel could not produce any material before us which could indicate Assessing Officer to have reconciled the assessee’s claim of impugned cash deposits vis-à-vis cash sales of agricultural produce after examining the corresponding expenses and other relevant details including the revenue record of the concerned agricultural lands in issue.

The assessee has also not placed on record any specific queries raised by the Assessing Officer by way of section 143(2) as well as 142(1) notice(s), as the case may be. Faced with this situation, we conclude that the learned PCIT’s revision directions herein holding the foregoing re- assessments as erroneous ones causing prejudice to the interest of revenue, hardly deserve to be interfered in these peculiar facts and circumstances. The same stand upheld therefore.

6.

Delay of 17 days each in filing of both these appeals stand condoned in the larger interest of justice.

7.

These assessee’s twin appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 07th December, 2022.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →