GEETA SHARMA,SUNAM V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PATIALA

ITA 476/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Geeta Sharma against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Patiala, under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which challenged the original assessment order for the assessment year 2019-20. The original assessment included an addition of Rs. 2,83,94,932 to the assessee's income, which was claimed as exempt under Section 10(37) but was not substantiated with required documents and details. The Tribunal examined the procedural lapses and substantive errors in the assessment and revision orders, including the incorrect application of facts and figures, leading to the conclusion that the impugned order was based on erroneous assumptions and thus set aside.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107856 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIROHIT SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV SALDI
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained investment; Retraction; Capital Gains; TDS; Rectification of order; Revision of order
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 154; 263; 131; 44AD; 133A; 272A; 20

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च᭛डीगढ़ ᭠यायपीठ,च᭛डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 476/CHD/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Geeta Sharma, City Petroleums, Mata Modi Road, Sunam. बनाम VS The Pr. CIT, Patiala. ᭭थायीलेखासं./PAN /TAN No:AOBPS2947F अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent िनधाᭅᳯरती कᳱ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Rajiv Saldi, CA राज᭭व कᳱ ओर से/Revenue by : ShriRohit Sharma, CIT DR तारीख/Date of Hearing :19.09.2024 उदघोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 29/10/2024 PHYSICAL HEARING आदेश/ORDER PER PARESH M. JOSHI, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act). The relevant assessment year is 2019-20, the corresponding previous year is the Financial Year 2018-19 i.e. 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019. The assessee is aggrieved by the order of PCIT passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 bearing number ITBA/Rev 5/2023- 24/1061725348 (1) dated 29.02.2024 which is hereinafter referred ITA 476/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 2 to as the “impugned order” for the sake of brevity and convenience. Factual Matrix 2. That the assessee had filed a return of income of Rs.14,65,910.00 for assessment year 2019-20 vide acknowledgement number 501367120120619 on 12.06.2019. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the following reasons:- (1) Issue of Refund Claim: 3. That a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued which was dated 31.03.2021 requiring the assessee to submit or cause to submit - (i) Any evidence on which he may rely in support of his return of income; (ii) Reply to the above-mentioned issues Electronically in 'e- Proceedings' facility through your account in e-Filing web site (www.Incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in) within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. 4. That the assessee was specifically advised that since it is a complete scrutiny proceedings, he should gather all the information, documents, evidences, etc. related to the above referred issues and in respect of various financial transactions entered during the Assessment Year under consideration, which may be relevant for thescrutiny proceedings. It was also informed that detailed questionnaire(s) or communication may be issued ITA 476/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 3 during the course of assessment proceedings and as and when questionnaire(s) or communication is issued, the assessee is requiredto provide specific point-wise response within the time specified. There has not been any complianceto this notice within the time allowed in the notice. 5. That thereafter a notice U/s 142(1) of the Income-taxAct, 1961 was issued on 09/06/2021vide DIN:ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2021-22/1033369737(1), whichis in the following terms: \"Dear Taxpayer, Kindly refer to notice U/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act,1961, dated 31/03/2021 for A.Y 2019-20 for conducting assessment proceedings under Eassessment Scheme, 2019. 2. We appreciate the anxiety and uncertainty that is facing all of us in the times of Covid-19. This communication is to assist you in ending one uncertainty, whichis pending e-Assessment in your case for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 3. You are requested and required to kindly furnish or cause to be furnished on or before 16/06/2021 by 05:40 PM, the accounts and documents specified in the Annexure to this notice. 4. The accounts or documents, as mentioned above, are required to be submitted online electronically in 'E-proceedings' facility through your account in e- Filingwebsite (www.incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in)\" Annexure to this notice readas under: ANNEXURE 4. The assessee, Individual, derives income from dairy business as also interest/compensation received on acquisition of land which has been claimed exempt U/s 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He also derived interest income from Bank. Return of income declaring total income of Rs. 14,65,910.00 has been filed on 12/06/2019 vide acknowledge No. 501367120120619.The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS, initially on the issue of Refund Claim. In the ITR filed in ITR 4 (Sugam), Gross total income from dairy business at Rs. 23,975.00 and Income from other sources at Rs. 14,51,939.00 aggregating to Rs. 14,75,939.00 has been shown and deduction U/s 80TTA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has claimed at Rs. 10,000.00 and thus total Incomehas been declared at Rs. 14,65,910.00. Dairy business income is purportedly shown U/s. 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961. i.e. net income has been shown at Rs. 23,975.00 on receipts of Rs. 95,900.00. Cash in hand is shown at Rs. 2, 00,000.00. Exemption income is shown at Rs 2,83,94.932.00. i.e., interest received from land acquisition exempt U/s. 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.2,79,08,506.00 and compensation received under land acquisition claimed exempt U/s 10(37) of the Income Tax Act,1961 at Rs. 4,86,426.00. In this regard, the assessee is required to explain/furnish the following. ITA 476/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 4 1. Copy of ack. of ITR and statement of computation of total income. 2. Copies of title deeds in respect of land compulsorily acquired. 3.Copies of orders of the authority acquiring the land compulsorily. 4. Nature of land compulsorily acquired, whether rural or urban/whetherrural agricultural land or otherwise. 5. Statements in respect of all bank accounts for the financial year.\" 6. That the assessee has not complied with the requirements of the notice under sec. 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 by the time allowed in the notice. In the absence of any compliance with the statutory notices issued, there is no other alternative, but to complete the assessment on merit on the basis of information available on record U/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings U/s 272A (1)(d) of the Income-tax Act,1961 shall be initiated for noncompliance with statutory notices. Therefore, having regard to the facts of the case, a show cause notice vide DIN & Notice No ITBA/AST/F/143(3)(SCN)/20 21-22/1035081559(1) Dated 25/08/2021 was issued to the assessee in e-portal of faceless assessment giving opportunity to explain as to why the assessment be not completed ex-parte under sec. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the basis of material available on record.The compliance was required on or before 09/09/2021. The assessee has not complied with the requirements of the show cause by the time allowed in the notice. ITA 476/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 5 7. That as against the TDS and TCS, the assessee has shown interest received from land acquisition at Rs. 2,79,08,506.00 and compensation received under land acquisition at Rs, 4,86,426.00, both aggregated to Rs. 2,83,94,932.00. This has been claimed exempt U/s 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8. That as per Annexure to notice U/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee has been required to furnish copies of title deeds in respect of land compulsorily acquired; copies of orders of the authority acquiring the land compulsorily and details regarding nature of land compulsorily acquired, whether rural or urban/whether rural agricultural land or otherwise. There are no details available in the ITR regarding nature of the land acquired, its location, etc. to ascertain the correctness of the claim of exemption U/s 10(37) of the Income-tax Act,1961. Section 10(37) of the Income tax Act,1961 reads as under: \"10. In computing the totalincome of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included - …………………………………………………………… (37) in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, any income chargeable under the head \"Capital gains\" arising from the transfer of agricultural land, where 1. such land is situate in any area referred to in item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2. such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding the date oftransfer, was being used for agricultural purposes by such ITA 476/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 6 Hindu undivided family or individual or a parent of his; 3. such transfer is by way of compulsory acquisition under any law, or a transfer the consideration for which is determined or approved by the Central Government or the Reserve Bank of India; 4. such income has arisen from the compensation or consideration for such transfer received by such assessee or after the 1 st day of April, 2004. Explanation - For the purposes of this clause, the expression \"compensation or consideration\" includes the compensation or consideration enhanced or further enhanced by any court, Tribunal or other authority;\" 9. That ld. AO vide order No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021- 22/1035457531(1) dated 10.09.2021 has held as under: “8. Now, in the absence of any evidence either in the return of income or any details or evidence furnished in response to notice U/s 143(2) or 142(1) of the Income-tax Act. 1951 and show cause notice, the claim of the assessee regarding the claim of receipt compensation as exempt U/s 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be accepted. Further, in the absence of any details regarding acquisition of the land by the assessee.question of computation of capital gains arising from the transfer of the property also doe snot arise. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire receipts of Rs.2,83,94,932.00 shall be treated as revenue receipts and shall be taxed as income the assessee from other sources of the financial year relevant for the assessment year under consideration. Penalty proceedings U/s 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are initiated for under reporting of income.” 10. Consequently vide para 9 of aforesaid order, total income of the assessee was computed as below: “9. Subject to the foregoing discussion, the total income of the assessee shall be computed as under: Total Income as per ITR Rs. 14,65,910/- Add: Income from other sources as per Para 8 above. Rs.2,83,94,932/- Total Income Rs 2,98,60,842/-“ ITA 476/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 7 11. The above assessment order of ld. AO dated which is 10.09.2021 was passed in terms of Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 12. That the Notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act for assessment year 2019-20 bears the amount of Rs.1731/- vide Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/156/2021-22/1035457567(1) dated 10.09.2021. 13. That Computation Sheet bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/183/2021- 22/1035457570(1) for assessment year 2019-20 in respect of order under Section 143(3) dated 10.09.2021 show in column No. 59 demand of Rs.1731/- as Payable. 14. That the impugned order under Section 263 dated 29.02.2024 interalia has been challenged before us on following grounds: 1. That the notice issued under section 263 by Principal CIT and order passed under section 263 is illegal bad in law and against the facts of the case. 2. That the assumption of jurisdiction by Principal CIT is completely on wrong facts that, the investment of Rs 31,67,200/- made by the assessee and her subsequent surrender has not been examined during the assessment proceedings, whereas the facts on record were completely against the said assumption. 3. That the Principal CIT ignored the settled legal position that an issue which has been specifically discussed and decided by the AO cannot be reopened under the provisions of Section 263. 4. That the Principal CIT has wrongly concluded that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for AY 2019-20 is erroneous. 5. Thai the Principal CI f has wrongly concluded that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for AY 2019-20 is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue Although deposits were duly explained before the Ld. AO. Moreover, there was no purchase or investment during the year in question. ITA 476/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 8 6. Thai the Principal CIT has failed to appreciate that the property in question was purchased in FY 2014-15 and the AO reopened the proceedings of AY 2015- 16 after accepting the submissions of assessee in AY 2019-20. 7. That the proceeding and the order passed by the Principal CIT u/s 263 is perverse as it based on general observation and not specific to the facts of the case. Record of Hearing 15. The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 19.09.2024 when ld. AR placed on record of this Tribunal a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 20 and a Purchase Deed dated 03.11.2014 in “Gurumukhi script” evidencing a purchase of immovable property worth Rs.31,67,200/-[Rs.29,60,000/- (cost)+Rs.2,07,200/- (Stamp Duty].Basis Paper Book filed and document tendered (supra) it was vehemently contended that the impugned order of PCIT under Section 263 of the Act is bad in law, illegal and not proper and deserves to be set aside by this Tribunal as the whole basis of impugned order is completely false and not true. The facts narrated in the impugned order pertain to some other case and while preparing and drafting the impugned order, facts and circumstances of some other case of some other assessee has just been copy pasted in the impugned order. Under these circumstances, the impugned order should be set aside completely as facts and circumstances stated therein are of some other case some other assessee whereas facts and circumstances of the assessee's case are covered by assessment order No. ITA 476/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 9 ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1041461584(1) dated 24.03.2022 for assessment year 2015-16 passed in terms of Section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B, copy whereof is on page 14 to 18 of Paper Book filed and this order is correct assessment order and not the assessment order impugned in ‘Impugned order under Section 263” of the Act. Therefore, impugned order should be set aside at naught, being non est. 15.1 It was further contended that a Show Cause Notice dated 05.02.2024 was issued by the ld. PCIT (page 1 to 3 of Paper Book) calling upon the assessee to show cause why assessment order dated 10.09.2021 should not be revised under Section 263 of the Act as the assessed income was Rs.2,98,60,842/- wherein an addition of Rs.2,83,94,932/- was made under head 'income from other sources' on account of disallowance under Section 10(37) of the Act. It was stated that tax has been calculated on income of Rs.3,79,320/- and [agriculture income of Rs.2,50,000/- only] but not on assessed income of Rs.2,98,60,842/-. 15.2 In the aforesaid Show Cause Notice dated 05.02.2024 it was further alleged that“you had e-filed your return of income for the A.Y. 2019-20 on 11.11.2019 having e-filing acknowledgement No. 227687890291019 declaring income of Rs.3,79,320/- and agricultural income of Rs. 2,50,000/- claiming refund of Rs. 51,750/-. ITA 476/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 10 However, on perusal of the facts mentioned in the assessment order passed by NFAC, Delhi on 10.09.2021, the date of filing of return was mentioned as 12.06.2019 and e- filingacknowledgement No.501367120120619 was mentioned wherein total income declared by the assessee was Rs.14,65,910/-. In view of the above mentioned facts, it is observed that the facts and figuresmentioned in the ITR filed by you on 11.11.2019 is not matching with the ITR details and otherinformation mentioned in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 10.09.2021. Therefore, the assessment order passed by NFAC, NewDelhi on 10.09.2021 is erroneous. 15.3 It was further alleged in the Show Cause Notice that “a survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 31.10.2018 at the business premises of your son i.e. Sh. Rohit Sharma, Sunam. During the course of survey proceedings, a copy of a registered purchase deed dated 03.11.2014 was found vide which you had purchased a residential property situated at Sunam for Rs. 31,67,200/- regarding which you, in your statement recorded on oath u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 admitted that the whole investment amounting to Rs. 31,67,200/- was unexplained investment and hence offered the whole amount of Rs. 31,67,200/-as your additional income for the F.Y. 2018-19, relevant to the A.Y. 2019-20. You filed your Return of Income for the A.Y. 2019-20 on 29.10.2019 vide e-filing Ack. No. 227687890291019 ITA 476/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 11 declaring total income of Rs. 3,79,320 and agricultural income of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2019-20 was selected for scrutiny on the issue \"Case is pertaining to survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961\". However, as discussed in paras above, this aspect has not been examined during the assessment proceedings.” 15.4 In view of the aforesaid Show Cause Notice dated 05.02.2024 issued in Revision Proceedings under Section 263, the assessee was called upon to show cause why an order under Section 263 of the Act should not be passed reviewing the order dated 10.09.2021 i.e., the original assessment order, passed under Section 143(3)r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act. 15.5 The assessee vide their reply dated 14.02.2024 duly offered her explanation to the Show Cause Notice dated 05.02.2024 and highlighted the following: a) That the order of ld. AO is not erroneous b) That the computation sheet of the AO’s order clearly reflects the correct figures and all the figures in the Computation Sheet are in complete agreement with the return of income filed by the assessee. The only mistake in the body of assessment order is due to typographical error which has occurred due to copy paste from some other order for which assessee has already filed the rectification application. c) Order is not prejudicial to the interest of Revenue (i) The AO issued notice under Section 142(1) dated 15.03.2021 for assessment year 2019-20 bearing a DIN No. ITBA/AST/E/142(1)/2020- ITA 476/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 12 21/1031486666(1) in which 3 detailed questions, out of total 4, were regarding the registered purchase deed amounting to Rs.31,67,200/- and details of surrender of Rs.31,67,200/- were sought. The same was duly replied by the assessee by stating that the registered purchase deed belongs to assessment year 2015-16 and in that regard Notice under Section 148 was already issued. It was contended that surrender was withdrawn vide letter dated 14.01.2019 and that copy of the same was enclosed with reply filed before AO. The ld. AO rightly dropped the proceedings after duly considering the submissions of the assessee. (ii) That the surrender by assessee Geeta Sharma was based on the registered purchase deed amounting to Rs.31,67,200/- dated 03.11.2014 which was found during survey operation. The case for AY 2015-16 was reopened on the basis of the aforesaid purchase deed and an addition of Rs.31,67,200/- is already made in the ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 vide Assessment Order dated 24.03.2022. The same registered purchase deed cannot be made the basis of reopening of case for another AY i.e. 2019-20 as it will lead to double taxation of same amount. (iii) There is no provision in law to tax income of AY 2015-16 in the AY 2019-20. In the aforesaid reply assessee has enclosed all relevant documents & papers before ld. PCIT to enable him/her to take appropriatedecision under Section 263. Notable documents were copy of surrender letter, copy of petition through which surrender was withdrawn, copy of AO for AY 2015-16 where alleged income of Rs. 31,67,200/- has been assessed in the hand of the assessee, copy of notice of AO under Section 142(1) dated 15.03.2021 for AY 2019-20 in which question regarding surrender of Rs.31,67,200/- were asked in detail,& copy of reply filed by the assessee before AO in response to notice under Section 142(1). ITA 476/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 13 15.6. Basis of above, it was finally contended by the ld. AR that the impugned order u/s 263 ought not to have been passed. The facts in logical & sequential manner is not known to the Deptt. Even in reply to the SCN facts were clearly eludicidated & clarified still the impugned order came to be passed with no fault of the assessee. All material facts and circumstances were fully known to the ld. AO when he passed original assessment order dated 10.09.2021. Even for sake of argument certain mistakes has happened while original Assessment Order was being prepared and print out were taken, the mistakes are not fatal in notice as these mistakes are typo, arithmetical in notice. Be it sum and substanceis stated in the original Assessment Order dated 10.09.2021 and there is no flaw to such an extent to treat the original Assessment Order dated 10.09.2021 as nonest and erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, which ought to have warranted a revision under Section 263. The impugned order having been made is bad in law illegal and not proper. 16. Per contra, the ld. DR has supported the impugned order of ld. PCIT which has correctly classified the original Assessment Order dated 10.09.2021 as erroneous and prejudicial within the meaning of section 263 of the I.T. Act 1961. However, the nature of erroneousness of the impugned order coupled with the fact that it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue has not been contended &instead, Reliance is placed on PCIT, impugned order. Findings and conclusions 17. We how have to decide legality, validity &proprietary of the impugned order in light of the facts & circumstances as aforesaid. 18. We are mandated to decide the present appeal in accordance with the provision of law & binding judicial precedents provided they ITA 476/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 14 are applicable to the facts and the circumstance of the instant case in hand. We also mandated to follow broad proposition of law as determined by the Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court/other High Courts. 19. At the outset and at the threshold, we hold that Assessment Order bearing No. ITBA/AST/5/143(3)/2021-22/1035457531(1) dated 10.09.2021 basis which Revisionary/proceedings were initiated u/s 263 culminating into the impugned order when read with computation sheet bearing No. ITBA/AST/5/183/2021-22/1035457570(1) dated 10.09.2021 showing amount of Rs.1731 as tax payable is correct & not erroneous/prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Simultaneously notice of demand under Section 156 bearing No. ITBA/AST/5/156/2021-22/1035457567(1) dated 10.09.2021 corroborates this fact too. 20. We hold that while it may be true and it is, as it appears that a return of income declaring total income of Rs.14,65,910.00 for AY 2019- 20 was filed on 12.06.2019 vide acknowledgement No. 501367120120120619 on 12.06.2019 with case selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for “issue of refund claim” and further against total income as per ITR of Rs.14,65,910/- an amount was added up by Rs.2,83,94,932/- making total income exigible to tax as Rs.2,98,60,842/- 21. We also hold that above stated in para 20 has rightly been contested by ld. AR as mistake/error while making/drawing up original Assessment Order dated 10.09.2021 due to some probable copy –paste from some other order/case. The ld. AR has placed on record on page 20 of PB a letter dated 11.10.2022 for rectification of mistake under Section 154 of the IT Act, 1961 which is perused by us and in particular the following:- “From the perusal of Assessment Order it is noticed that name of the assessee is correct but in the body of Assessment Order, the figure ITA 476/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 15 and facts have been mentioned of some other assessee these figure do not relate to Geeta Sharma assessee but the computation sheet attached is correct and figure in computation are also correct.” It seems that while typing the Assessment order it has been wrongly copy pasted, the order of some other assessee, which may be kindly, corrected and retyped assessment order be supplied. Copy of Assessment Order and computation sheet are enclosed for ready reference to do the needful for rectification 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” We regret to note that No Order under Section 154 is passed despite above application dated 10.11.2022. The impugned Order under Section 263 is dated 29/02/2024whereas order in original Assessment is dated 10/09/2021, application for rectification u/s 154 is dated 11/11/2022. Had any order u/s 154 would have been passedrectifying the mistake under original Assessment Order dated 10/09/2021 all stakeholders would not have beenin a position what they are in today due to complete lethargy in passing appropriaterectification order under Section 154 rectifying the defects pointed out by ld. AR of the assessee. We hold that by virtue of provision contained in section 154(8) it is incumbent upon the Income Tax Authorities to pass an order within a period of six months from the end of the month in which the application is received by it:- (a) Making the amendment-or (b) Refusing to allow the claim We therefore, hold that by not passing any order u/s 154 of the I.T. Act within the time specified u/s 154(8) the Income Tax Authorities have abdicatedtheir duties and there such Act or omission or failure in not passing the order u/s 154 within the time specified under Section ITA 476/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 16 154(8) amounts to nothing short of a total lethargy too, besides abdication (supra). Under these circumstances this Tribunal is perforced to draw an adverse inference that-whatever is contended before us and so also in the application u/s 154 (supra) are all correct. 22. We also express our anguish and surprise that despite these facts and circumstances (supra) having been brought to the notice of ld. PCIT vide letter 14.02.2024 with all enclosures which was reply to Show Cause Notice dated 05.02.2024 issued by PCIT. No cognizance of the same was taken up in the impugned order of PCIT under Section 263 in a manner known to law. Be that as it may we hold that-by virtueof Assessment Order bearing No. ITBA/AST/5/147/2021-22/1041461584(1) dated 24.03.2022 in the case of Geeta Sharma the assessee herein the AY 2015-16 the issue of survey proceedings under Section 133A of the Act conducted on 31.10.2018 wherein Regd. Sale deed dated 3.11.2014 was found of Rs. 31,67,200/-, the surrender letters, retraction from surrender, statement made on oath, retraction from such statement are also discussed and stated. Finally against her return of income of Rs.2,68,010/-, addition of Rs.31,67,200/- is made and total income determined and assessed worked out to Rs.34,35,210/-. We therefore hold that whatever is stated in the Show Cause Notice dated 05.02.2024 and in the impugned order of ld. PCIT about survey proceedings conducted on 31.10.2018 stands negated completely in as much as sum of Rs.31,67,200/- stands taxed for AY 2015-16 and Assessment Order dated 24.03.2022 (supa) for AY 2015-16 is proof enough. 22.1 In so far as total income as per ITR of Rs.14,65,910/- addition of Rs.2,83,94,932/- making total income as of Rs.2,98,60,842/- for AY 2019- 20 vide AO No. ITBA/AST/5/143(3)/2021-22/1035457531(1) dated 10.09.2021 which is subject matter u/s 263 is concerned, the same speaks of incorrect figures, total computation of income, etc., and the ITA 476/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 17 accompaniment computation sheet wherein demand of Rs.1,731/- is made and so also recovery notice (supra) are proof enough that- whatever figures and computation are stated in AO dated 10.09.2021 are incorrect and wrong due to mistakes and errors which cropped up due to some reasons and may be belonging to some other case. Consequently, same crept up in the proceedings u/s 263 also which Income Tax Deptt. Failed to correct-it despite same having being brought-to it’s notice by the ld. AR of the assessee as stated above in reply to Show Cause Notice dated 05.02.2024 vide letter dated 14.02.2024 and rectification letter filed before AO dated 10.11.2022. 23. We, therefore, hold that-assessee has left no stone unturned to bring correct facts on record but Deptt. has failed them by passing the impugned order. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order. ORDER 24. Appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced as on 29.10.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (PARESH M. JOSHI) ACCOUNTANTMEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER “GP, Sr. PS” आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/ The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयुᲦ/ CIT 4. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयआिधकरण, च᭛डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाडᭅफाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "