Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK RIPOTE
Date of Hearing : 09.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 12.10.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Pr. CIT (Central), Bangalore’s order in case F.no.263/Pr.CIT(C)/2021-22, dated 28.03.2022, involving proceedings u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :
2 I.T.A.No.45/PAN./2022 1. “The order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore is opposed to the law and facts of the case.
The appellant respectfully submits that, the Order passed u/s 263 of Income Tax Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) without considering the detailed reply filed by the appellant on 26-03-2022 is against the principles of natural justice and therefore the order passed needs to be cancelled in the interest on equity and justice.
3. The appellant respectfully submits that, the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (central) erred in setting aside the order passed U/s 143(3) by the Assessing Officer on the ground that, the Assessing Officer has accepted the income returned without verification of the issues, even though the Assessing Officer has carried out the verification of relevant issues in detail for more than one year.
4. The appellant respectfully submits that, the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) erred in coming to the conclusion that the investment made in renovating the hospital building Rs.39,24,131/- and the investment made in Co-operative Societies, Rs.1,08,626/- should be taxed U/s 69B of Income Tax Act as ‘unexplained investment” and the same should be taxed as per the provisions of section 115BBE of Income Tax Act 3 I.T.A.No.45/PAN./2022 even though the appellant has explained the source of these investments satisfactorily to the Assessing Officer at the time of scrutiny assessment U/s 143(3).
5. The appellant respectfully submits that, the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) erred in treating the investment in Co-operative Societies Rs.1,08,626/- as unexplained investment u/s 69B of Income Tax Act in his order u/s 263, whereas in the show cause notice dated 11-03-2022 he had proposed to treat only the investment in the renovation of hospital building Rs.39,24,131/- as “unexplained investment” when the source for both these investments are the same.
The appellant respectfully submits that, where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) does not agree the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous order hence no action can be taken U/s 263 of Income Tax Act.
7. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal.”
Both the parties next invited our attention to the PCIT’s impugned revision directions terming the Assessing Officer’s regular assessment dated 17.12.2019 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue as under :
4 I.T.A.No.45/PAN./2022
5 I.T.A.No.45/PAN./2022
Learned counsel vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the PCIT herein has erred in law and on facts in invoking the impugned revision jurisdiction despite the fact that the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed in his case is neither erroneous nor it causes prejudice to interest of the Revenue. He invited our attention to the assessee’s detailed paper book running into 1 to 16A pages as well as case law compilation that the Assessing Officer had rightly accepted his declaration that the relevant figure of unexplained investment of Rs.39,24,131/- representing construction of hospital building as well as Rs.1,08,626/- made in fixed deposits came from his professional income only. He further vehemently argued that it is in this factual backdrop that the Assessing Officer had rightly accepted the assessee’s return to this effect which has been wrongly construed to be assessable u/sec.115BBE in the PCIT’s revision directions.
The Revenue has placed strong reliance on the PCIT’s foregoing revision directions.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the vehement rival submissions and find no merit in assessee’s case. This is for the precise reason that although the department had indeed come across the incriminating material
6 I.T.A.No.45/PAN./2022 indicating the assessee’s foregoing twin unexplained investments; which stood duly admitted at his behest; the fact remains that there are no details thereof forthcoming in the case file all along despite the fact that this is an instance of a medical professional covered under Rule-6F(2)(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The said Rule stipulates that not only a medical professional has to maintain a cash book/medical record of all cash receipts and payments but also a daily cash register in the prescribed Form no.3C. The assessee has failed to comply with the same. Faced with the situation, we are of the opinion that the assessee has not discharged his onus of proving the impugned unexplained investments as his professional receipts so as to get out of the rigor of sec.115BBE of the Act as is the PCIT’s case in his impugned revision directions. Learned counsel could also not quote any material indicating the Assessing Officer to have made all relevant queries to the assessee during the course of assessment to this effect. We thus uphold the PCIT’s exercise invoking sec.263 revision jurisdiction in light of hon'ble apex court’s landmark decisions in Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC), Tara Devi Aggarwal vs CIT 1973 SCR (2)1035. Rejected accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.
7 I.T.A.No.45/PAN./2022 Order pronounced in the open Court on 12.10.2023.