MOHAMMAD AMIN ,GUNA vs. PR CIT, GWALIOR

Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. We, accordingly, proceed ex parte against the assessee.

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side represented by learned CIT(DR) that the PCIT, Gwalior herein has invoked his section 263 revision jurisdiction thereby holding the corresponding twin regular assessments framed by the Assessing Officer, both dated 31.03.2022 as erroneous ones causing prejudice to the interest of the revenue. Learned CIT(DR) seeks to buttress the point that given the fact that the Assessing Officer herein has not carried out any enquiry, i.e. for the purpose of examining the source of assessee’s cash deposits assessed @ 8%, the revision directions forming the subject matter of challenge, ought to be upheld.

We find no merit in the Revenue’s contentions. We make it clear that the Assessing Officer’s identical twin assessments have not only held the assessee as engaged in live stock trading business but also treated his cash deposits as business turnover only, for the purpose of assessing the same at a uniform rate of 8% in both the assessment years, as the case may be. We thus, conclude that the same could not be termed as an instance of lack of enquiry as is projected at the Revenue’s behest to justify section 263 revision jurisdictions in light of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs.