JASWINDER SINGH LEGAL HEIR OF AVTAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. PCIT( CENTRAL) LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

By way of this appeal, the assessee assails invocation of revisionary juri iction u/s 263 by Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana-1 (Pr.CIT) for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20 vide impugned order dated 19-03-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s.153C of the Act on 24-02-2022. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. 2. The assessment was framed on the assessee pursuant to search action on son of the assessee Sh. Jaswinder Singh Rana wherein certain documents regarding purchase of agricultural land by the assessee were found. After considering assessee’s submissions, the returned income was accepted. The assessment order take note of the fact that the order was passed with the prior approval of Addl. CIT u/s 153D vide his letter No.2045 dated 23-02-2022. 3. Subsequently, upon perusal of case records, Ld. Pr. CIT show- caused the assessee u/s 263 on the ground that the assessee incurred cash expenditure of Rs.4,81,600/- which was stated to be sourced out of agricultural income. However, there was no withdrawal from the bank. Thus, the source of cash expenditure on behalf of Shri Jaswinder Singh Rana was not examined by Ld. AO. It was further observed that draft proposal for obtaining the requisite approval of Addl. CIT was submitted by DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala vide letter No. DCIT/CC/PTA/2-21-22/933 dated 21-02-2022. In the draft order, Ld. AO proposed addition of Rs.4,81,600/- u/s 69C for unexplained expenditure. The approval was granted vide letter No.2045 dated 23- 02-2022. However, while uploading the order on ITBA portal, Ld. AO uploaded the order in which returned income as filed by the assessee was accepted. The assessee opposed revision on the ground that the withdrawals were duly disclosed and Ld. AO accepted the same after verifying the same. Further, the requisite approval was granted by Addl. CIT u/s 153D only after due satisfaction. However, Ld. Pr. CIT observed that the assessee submitted cash books of Avtar Singh HUF and submitted that expenses were incurred by Avtar Singh HUF. However, no documentary evidence was furnished except for self made cash book of HUF entity. No enquiries were made by Ld. AO in that respect. Further, wrong order was uploaded on ITBA portal which did not have requisite approval u/s 153D. Accordingly, the assessment order was set aside for the limited purpose of examining the source of expenditure of Rs.4,81,600/-. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. The Ld. CIT-DR, during hearing before us, with the help of assessment records, amply demonstrated that in the draft order as send by Ld. AO for the approval of Addl. CIT, Ld. AO had proposed addition of Rs.4,81,600/- u/s 69C. The said order was approved by appropriate authority. However, wrong order accepting returned income by Ld. AO was uploaded on ITBA portal. The aforesaid fact alone, in our considered opinion, would make the assessment order of Ld. AO an erroneous one. The order which do not have the requisite approval is no order in the eyes of law. Therefore, Ld. Pr. CIT has rightly set aside the same and proposed revision of the order. This being so, we see no reason to interfere in the revisionary juri iction. However, our aforesaid adjudication would not be construed to have any expression on merits of the case. 5. The appeal stand dismissed. Order pronounced on 25-04-2025. (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟ /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER