PARVEZ PEERPASHA INAMDAR,PUNE vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3, PUNE

We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the only reason taken note of by the ld. PCIT for revising the assessment order is that the assessee had deposited Rs.92.25 lakh in his savings bank account which was not properly examined by the AO. The assessee categorically submitted before the AO that the cash did not pertain to him but to the Trust, of which he was a trustee and the bank had wrongly given PAN particulars of the assessee, which was further substantiated by the certificate from the concerned bank. Similar submission was also advanced before the ld. PCIT as well. The ld. AR has placed on record a copy of the assessment order passed in the case of Everest Education Society for the year under consideration in which cognizance has been taken of the cash amounting to Rs.92.25 lakh deposited in the bank account of Everest Education Society. Further, the AO completed the assessment in the hands of the trust making an addition u/s.69A amounting to Rs.92,35,600/- on that score. From the above narration of the events, it is clear that the cash shown to have been deposited in assessee’s bank account, in fact, pertained to Everest Education Society of which the assessee was a Trustee. The bank wrongly updated the PAN particulars of the assessee instead of Everest Education Society. This indicates that the AO was justified in not making the addition of Rs.92.25 lakh and the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We, therefore, set-aside the impugned order.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 01st December, 2022.

Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 01st December, 2022 Satish