DURBAR GANGULY,DELHI vs. PR, CIT DELHI-1, NEW DELHI

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It appears that the assessee has not appeared on the earlier occasions as well. We thus proceed ex-parte against the assessee. 3. Learned CIT-DR invites our attention to the PCIT, Delhi-1’s impugned order invoking section 263 revision juri iction dated 25th March, 2021 terming the corresponding regular assessment framed on 26.12.2017 by the Assessing Officer, as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue, as under:

1 Hence, it is prima-facie apparent that Salary income to the extent of Rs. 12,72,600 (Rs.36,00,600 - Rs. 23,80,000) has been short declared. It is not a case where any reimbursement, like conveyance reimbursement was received by the assessee from the employer and in the capital account it has taken the gross amount received and the corresponding expense has been shown as drawings. Thus, salary income to the extent of Rs. 12,72,600/- has been apparently short declared by the assessee, and the AO has failed to take the issue to the logical conclusion

2 Further, as per the TDS claimed and allowed, the assessee has earned Professional Receipt of Rs. 84,50,000/- from M/s CMYK Printech Ltd. However, the assessee in the Profit Loss Account has shown Gross Professional Income of Rs. 67,63,500/-. After claiming various expenses, the net profit of Rs. 22,36,597/- has been declared. However, the assessee submitted that in accordance with the settlement with CMYK Printech Limited, the assessee got benefits of Rs. 59,09,500/- by way of demand draft and a car of the value of Rs. 3 | P a g e

3 The assessee has shown this amount of Rs. 22,36,597/- as addition in the Capital account. However, no such amount similar to the value of car (as declared by the assessee) has been reflected in the capital account/balance sheet produced by the assessee. The AO has failed to enquire into the issue and take it to logical conclusion

4 Further, no reconciliation of the above mismatch has been submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The assessee has claimed entire TDS, but has not shown the corresponding income. Hence, it is apparent that professional income to the extent of Rs. 16,86,500/-(84,50,000- 67,63,500) has been short declared.

Explanation 2 of Section 263 of IT Act, 1961 is reproduced as under:

3 Accordingly, as per mandate of Explanation 2 of section 263 of the 1. Tax Act, I hold that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on afore-stated facts. Hence, I hereby set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on 26.12.2017 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for necessary verification and inquiry and the Assessing Officer is directed to make a fresh assessment de nave in terms of the direction given above.” 4 | P a g e

Ms. Kaur further takes us to the assessment order dated 26.12.2017 not indicating any factual verification or detailed inquiries carried out by the Assessing Officer during the course of scrutiny. Her case accordingly is that the learned PCIT’s impugned revisional discussion be upheld in these facts and circumstances. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s vehement contentions. We make it clear that the assessee has not even bothered to file all the relevant scrutiny notices issued by the Assessing Officer seeking the corresponding reconciliation in the capital account vis-à-vis the corresponding figures in the assessee’s form 26AS as well as the increase in capital, so as to rebut the PCIT’s revision findings concluding the said failure triggering his juri iction herein under section 263 of the Act. 7. Faced with this situation, we quote Malabar Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2023)453 ITR 447 (SC) to affirm the learned PCIT’s impugned revision directions in very terms. The assessee fails in the instant appeal therefore. 8. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 5 | P a g e