NADHARSHA PULUKUZHI SEETHY,ERNAKULAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI-1, KOCHI

It emerges during the course of hearing and from a perusal of the learned PCIT’s detailed discussion in his Section 263 revision proceedings that he has directed the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment afresh after holding the earlier one dated 20.12.2019 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue on the ground that the latter had filed to examine the issue of assessee’s cash deposits amounting to Rs.8.5 lakhs in Axis Bank A/c No. 915010010006818. 2 Nadharsha Pulukuzhi Seethy 3. Learned CIT-DR has drawn strong support from the PCIT’s revision direction under challenge.

We find that the Assessing Officer’s assessment herein in page 2 had examined all of the assessee’s credits/debits in the bank account above Rs.1,00,000/- during FY 2016-17 and partly treated the same as unexplained. That being the case, this could hardly be held as an assessment wherein the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind and not carried any enquiry or inadequate enquiry; as the case may be. Shri M. Rajasekhar vehemently argued that there is no detailed discussion in the assessment findings to this effect. We hold that there is no such precondition of a detailed discussion once the Assessing Officer examinesan issue as per CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). Learned PCIT’s revision directions in issue stand reversed therefore.

This assessee’s appealis allowed.