KIRAN BALA,FARIDABAD vs. PR, CIT, FARIDABAD

PDF

ITA 1152/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 March 2024AY 2011-12Bench: us, the assessee has failed to appear and bring on record anything contrary on facts from law, we are of the considered view that the discussion made by the Ld. PCIT in para 3.1 of the order of shows that the PCIT had made specific enquiries on the basis of record before him and that same time the order of Assessing Officer is silent. There is no error in the findings of the Ld. PCIT. The grounds raised in the appeal having no substance the assessee is dismissed.4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The assessee appealed against a Section 263 order by the PCIT, which found the original assessment order (under Section 143/147) erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The original assessment was reopened after a bank deposit of Rs.10,70,000/-, for which the assessee claimed funds from her husband's property sale or her own sources, but the Assessing Officer failed to conduct proper inquiries.

Held

The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, noting that the assessee failed to appear or present evidence to counter the PCIT's findings. The Tribunal agreed that the PCIT had made specific inquiries into the unsupported deposits, unlike the Assessing Officer, concluding there was no error in the PCIT's findings.

Key Issues

Whether the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263, deeming the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to the AO's failure to inquire into bank deposits, was justified.

Sections Cited

263, 143, 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI

For Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT- DR

Hearing: 12/03/2024Pronounced: 19/03/2024

ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] dated 10/03/2021 passed by Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revisionary Authority] in regard to assessment order dated 26/11/2018 u/s Kiran Bala vs. PCIT 143/147 passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1(4), Faridabad [hereinafter referred as ‘the AO].

At the time of hearing, none has appeared for the assessee and the record shows that notices have been repeatedly issued by postal means and also by email. On the RPAD, the acknowledgement is returned even endorsement that, there is ‘no such person’. Thus, further opportunities for service are not justified and arguments of Ld. DR were heard who supported the findings of the Ld. PCIT.

On appreciating the record, it comes up that the assessment order was passed accepting the returned income without there being any discussion of the issues, at all though the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act as assessee had deposited Rs.10,70,000/- in the bank account. The Ld. PCIT having perused the assessment record was of the view that at the time of assessment proceedings, the assessee had claimed that deposits were her husband’s money received from sale proceeds of immovable property, but the AO had failed to make enquiries in that regard. During the revision proceedings also, the assessee had Kiran Bala vs. PCIT claimed that she herself has sources of income, however, the Ld. PCIT has examined the bank accounts of the assessee and cash flow statement and found that the deposits were not supported by documentary evidences and, accordingly, found the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudice to the interest of Revenue. As before us, the assessee has failed to appear and bring on record anything contrary on facts from law, we are of the considered view that the discussion made by the Ld. PCIT in para 3.1 of the order of shows that the PCIT had made specific enquiries on the basis of record before him and that same time the order of Assessing Officer is silent. There is no error in the findings of the Ld. PCIT. The grounds raised in the appeal having no substance the assessee is dismissed.