Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee preferred an appeal against an order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) who found the assessment order erroneous. The PCIT's revision was based on the reasoning that the assessment order did not consider CBDT instructions regarding unsecured loans, despite the assessment being restricted to demonetization period cash deposits.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order focused solely on cash deposits during demonetization and did not demonstrate that the genuineness and creditworthiness of unsecured loans were examined. The Tribunal found no error in the PCIT's findings requiring interference.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment order correctly examined the genuineness and creditworthiness of unsecured loans in light of CBDT instructions, especially when the primary scrutiny was on demonetization period cash deposits.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : C : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagdish Kumar, Vs Pr. CIT, H. No.570/20, Durga Colony, Rohtak, Hansi Distt., Haryana. Hisar, Haryana. PAN: AIZPK3090M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 15.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 15.01.2024 ORDER
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This is appeal preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 25.02.2022 of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as Ld. PCIT) in Revision No.PCIT, Rohtak/Revision No.263/100000313559 arising out of the assessment order dated 28.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward-5, Hissar (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).
Heard and perused the record. None appeared for the assessee at the time of hearing and the notices issued by Registered covers are received back with the report of incomplete address. We have gone through the record and find that the address as provided by the assessee and as mentioned in the assessment orders and the PCIT order stand mentioned on the notices. The Bench Clerk has also informed that earlier a request was received from the assessee on which a phone number was mentioned and even on that phone number the assessee/appellant has been informed. No more opportunity is justified. The ld. DR was heard who supported the order of the ld. PCIT.
It comes up that the ld.PCIT had found the order of ld. AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for the reason that without taking cognizance of the CBDT Instructions, the order was passed. The issue revolves around questioning of genuineness and credit worthiness of unsecured loans and there is nothing before us other than the impugned order to show that during the assessment proceedings the assessee was otherwise questioned on this aspect and he had satisfied the AO. On the contrary, the assessment order shows that the examination was restricted to only cash deposits during demonetization period. We are of the considered view that although it was a case of limited scrutiny for the reason of large value cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to returned income it does not come up from the assessment order if the question of unsecured loans which had become part of the cash flow of assessee were also examined. There is no error in the findings of ld. PCIT requiring interference. There is no substance in the grounds.