PRADEEP CHAUHAN,AGRA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 41/AGR/2022Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 February 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising revision jurisdiction. The PCIT's direction was based on the premise that the source of cash deposits was not examined, but the assessment order itself indicated these deposits were treated as bogus sales.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2017-18. The PCIT initiated revision proceedings under Section 263, considering the Assessing Officer's assessment order erroneous.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT correctly invoked revisionary powers under Section 263 when the assessment order had already addressed the cash deposits as bogus sales?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 12.02.2025Pronounced: 12.02.2025

Date of Hearing 12.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.02.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, [in short, the “CIT(A)”] Agra’s order dated 30.03.2022, in proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’].

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

We notice during the course of hearing that the learned PCIT’s revision directions have held the Assessing Officer’s regular assessment framed on 20.12.2019 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of the revenue for the sole reason that the source of assessee’s cash deposits amounting to Rs.17,06,315/- had neither been examined nor rectified during scrutiny.

4.

It is in this factual backdrop that the assessment order itself indicates at page 2 that the assessee’s total cash deposits of Rs.2.23 crores had been assessed as bogus sales and, therefore, the Revenue’s stand that the assessee was required to explain source of each and every cash entry, could not be held as sustainable in law. We accordingly conclude that the learned PCIT herein has erred in law and on facts in exercising his section 263 revision jurisdiction. His impugned direction stand reversed in very terms.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12.02.2025

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →