SUPRIYA ENTERPRISES,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO, TIRUR

We first of all note that PCIT’s impugned revision directions read as follows: - “1. The assessee filed the Return of Income for A.Y 2015-16 on 24-03-2017 admitting a total income of Rs. 2,85,940/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment by CASS under limited category for verifying whether the cash in hand· shown in Return of income is correct. Subsequently the notice u/s 143(2) was issued to assessee. The assessing officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 12/12/2017 by limiting the cash in 2 M/s. Supriya Enterprises hand of assessee to Rs. 27,28,221/- from Rs. 56,60,508/-. 2. On perusal of the assessment records it is noticed that, the assessing officer completed the assessment by limiting the cash in hand of assessee to Rs. 27,28,221/- from Rs. 56,60,508/- as the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings failed to produce the confirmation from debtors to the tune of amount of Rs. 29,32,287/-.

Here though the assessing officer has rejected the explanation of the assessee to the tune of amount of Rs. 29,32,287/-. which was found credited in the books of accounts of the assessee, but failed in not treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The section 68 of the income tax 1961 clearly states that "Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of the previous year." Thus, this has resulted to an under assessment of Rs. 29,32,287/-. It is evident that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind and has not conducted any verification during the course of scrutiny assessment to assess this amount of Rs. 29.32.287/- which was stated as received from debtors under section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 as unexplained cash credit. 2. Accordingly a proposal for revision u/s 263 was sent to assessee by issuing Notice u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 on 20/02/2020 by mentioning the above cited issues. 3. The authorised representative of the assessee Shri P Vijayan appeared on 13-03-2020 and the case was discussed in detail with him. 4. The assessee objected the proposal for revision u/s 263 by stating that in this case audit u/s 44AB is made and, once the' assessing officer accepted the ROI no other addition is warranted. 5. Submission of the assessee was carefully considered. The contention of the assessee that, once the assessing officer accepted the ROI no other addition is warranted is incorrect and non- acceptable. The Assessing Officer did not modify the returned income only, however the Assessing Officer has restricted the cash in hand of the assessee. Further the section 263 of the Income Tax Act empowers the Principal Commissioner to pass an order as the circumstances of the case justify, inc1uding enhance of modify or cancel anddirect fresh assessment if he considers that the order passed by passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Here, the Assessing Officer has erred in not assessing Rs. 29,32,287/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 which was found credited in the books of 3 M/s. Supriya Enterprises accounts of the assessee and claimed as received from debtors which the assessee could not prove. During the revision proceedings also the assessee could not substantiate the sources for cash at Rs 29,32,287/-. with any cogent evidence. Since the assessee failed to explain the sources for said amount satisfactorily, the same is to be assessed u/s 68 of the income Tax Act. As a result the assessed income is enhanced by the said amount i.e, Rs. 29,32,287/- u/s 68 of the Act. 6. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is hereby directed to collect the demand expeditiously.” 3. We next find that the assessee appears to have filed its additional evidence before the tribunal. And that the earlier learned coordinate bench’s order dated 17.03.2022 had sought for a remand report. The same stands filed by the department on 15.09.2022 wherein it has been made clear from the learned PCIT’s end that the assessee could not establish genuineness of the concerned ledger accounts concerned in issue. That being the case, we find no merit in assessee’s arguments before us since neither the Assessing Officer could examine the said relevant records filed by the assessee in the original assessment which, rightly led the PCIT herein to assume his Section 263 revision jurisdiction nor it has been able to file cogent evidence in remand as well. Faced with this situation, we uphold the learned PCIT’s Section 263 revision order under challenge.

Delay of 56 days in filing the appeal is condoned since falling in Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed.