D.Ramagopal, Coimbatore V. DCIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

ITA 1212/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1982 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 13; 263; 63; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI , . , & BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.1212 TO 1218/CHNY/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 TO 2014-15) MR. DHAMODARASAMY RAMAGOPAL, C/O.G.VIJAYCHAND JHABAKH, 157, P.M.SWAMY COLONY, 5 TH STREET, R.S.PURAM, COIMBATORE-641 006. VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 COIMBATORE-641 018. PAN:AKGPR3621L ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. ABANI KANTA NAYAK, CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 10.11.2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.12.2020 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE SEVEN APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DI RECTED AGAINST SEPARATE, BUT IDENTICAL ORDERS OF THE LEA RNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-2, CHENNAI, ALL DATED 23.03.2018 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) AND PERT AIN TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2014-15. SINCE, THE F ACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND ISSUES ARE COMMON, FOR THE SAKE OF C ONVENIENCE, THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY T HIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2 ITA NOS. 1212 TO 1218/CHNY/2018 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS MORE OR LESS FILED COMMON GROU NDS OF APPEAL FOR ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS, THEREFORE, FOR TH E SAKE OF BREVITY, GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8-09 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ORDER U/S.263 IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS. 2.THE BASIS OF PASSING THE 263 ORDERS TO SET A SIDE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDERS ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJECTI ON IS ALSO BAD IN LAW AND UNSUSTAINABLE. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E ON 27.11.2013. AS A RESULT OF SEARCH AND POST-SEARCH ENQUIRIES V ARIOUS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE A SSESSEE WAS FOUND. CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH, NOTICE U/S.153A OF TH E ACT WAS ISSUED REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME FO R SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH TOOK PLACE. THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY DID NOT FILE RE TURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S.153A, HOWEVER, AFTER SEVERAL REMI NDERS AND INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S.271F FOR NOT FILING THE RETURNS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 02.01.2016 DECLARIN G NIL TOTAL INCOME AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 2,70,000/-. THEREAFTER, THE CASE HAS 3 ITA NOS. 1212 TO 1218/CHNY/2018 BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S.143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT ON 3 0.03.2016 AND DETERMINED TOTAL INCOME OF ` NIL. 4. THE CASE HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN UP FOR REVI SION BY LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTR AL- 2, CHENNAI, AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S.263 DATED 08.03.2018 WAS ISSUED CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 153A READ WI TH SECTION 143(3) DATED 30.03.2016 SHALL NOT BE REVISED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. AS PER THE SAID S HOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE PCIT HAS CONSIDERED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE IN TERESTS OF THE REVENUE ON TWO ISSUES. AS PER THE PCIT, ASSESSMEN T ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS, INS OFAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF NON -CONSIDERATION OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN FIXED DEPOSITS AND UNPROVED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ACCORDING TO TH E PCIT, ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSE IN HIS RETURN OF I NCOME, BUT HE HAS 4 ITA NOS. 1212 TO 1218/CHNY/2018 FAILED TO MAKE ANY ADDITION TO THE RETURNED INCOME , WHICH RENDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE PCIT HAS ALSO QUESTIO NED UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS IN FIXED DEPOSITS ON T HE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS GATHERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH, ALTHOUGH HE HAS CALLED FOR CERTAIN DETAILS IN RESPECT OF UNA CCOUNTED INVESTMENTS IN FIXED DEPOSITS VIDE NOTICE U/S.142( 1) DATED 30.03.2016, WHICH RENDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF T HE REVENUE. 5. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 19.03.2018 SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 153A R.W.S 143(3) OF THE ACT IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE R EVENUE BECAUSE THE TWO ISSUES QUESTIONED BY THE PCIT IN 263 P ROCEEDINGS HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS DISCUSSED THE DISCLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL INCO ME IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS RE JECTED THE CLAIM, 5 ITA NOS. 1212 TO 1218/CHNY/2018 HOWEVER, NOT MADE ANY ADDITIONS TO RETURNED INCOME FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE C LAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WITH SOLID EVIDENCES. AS REGAR DS INVESTMENTS IN FIXED DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED NECESSARY DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS ALSO OFFERED INTEREST I NCOME EARNED ON THE SAID FIXED DEPOSITS, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITIONS TOWARDS AC CRUED INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS IN THE ASSESSMENTS WHEREVER TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAID INTEREST INCOME IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE CONSID ERED AS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTE RESTS OF THE REVENUE. 6. THE LEARNED PCIT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMIS SIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF VARIOUS FACTS CA ME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE STS OF THE REVENUE BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS IN FIXED DEPOSITS, WHICH HE OUGHT TO HAVE EXAMINED IN THE LI GHT OF THE VARIOUS 6 ITA NOS. 1212 TO 1218/CHNY/2018 EVIDENCES GATHERED DURING THE SEARCH WHICH RENDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE PCIT FURTHER NOTED TH AT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED FOR CERTAIN DETAILS REGARDING SOURCES FOR UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS IN FIXED DEPOSITS VID E NOTICE U/S.142(1) DATED 30.09.2015, THE ASSESSEE HAS FUR NISHED HIS REPLY ON 08.10.2015, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD JUST GATHERED THE INFORMATION AND SIMPLY KEPT ON RECORD WITHOUT AP PLICATION OF MIND TO THE RELEVANT FACTS, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE F ACT THAT ALTHOUGH HE HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, BU T FAILED TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONS TO RETURNED INCOME TOWARDS BOGUS C LAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. AS REGARDS UNACCOUNTED INVES TMENTS IN FIXED DEPOSITS, ALTHOUGH HE HAS CALLED FOR CERTAIN BASI C DETAILS, BUT FAILED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE FOR INVESTMENTS IN FIXED DE POSITS. THE PCIT HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF CERTAIN J UDICIAL PRECEDENTS AND ALSO HAS TAKEN SUPPORT FROM EXPLANATION 2 TO S ECTION 263 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2015, WIT H EFFECT FROM 01.04.2015 TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT AN ORDER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE ERRONEOUS, IF IT HAS BEEN PASSED WITH OUT MAKING 7 ITA NOS. 1212 TO 1218/CHNY/2018 INQUIRIES OR VERIFICATION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN M ADE, HENCE WHAT IS RELEVANT FOR CLAUSE (A) OF EXPLANATION 2 TO SEC TION 263 IS WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ORDER AFTER CARRYING OUT INQUIRIES OR VERIFICATION WHICH A REASONABLE AND P RUDENT OFFICER WOULD HAVE CARRIED OUT OR NOT. AS DISCUSSED AB OVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CLEARLY FAILED TO MAKE ANY VERIFICATION OR INQUIRY ON THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFO RE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ONLY ERRO NEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. HENCE , THE PCIT SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS IN FIXED DEPOSITS AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LEARNED A.R FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T THE LEARNED PCIT ERRED IN REVISING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.2 63 OF THE ACT WITHOUT POINTING OUT HOW THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PAS SED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 153A R.W.S 143(3) OF THE A CT DATED 30.03.2016 IS ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT PCIT HAS SIMPLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER FOR EXAMINATION OF THE TWO I SSUES, WHICH WAS 8 ITA NOS. 1212 TO 1218/CHNY/2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PCIT U /S.263 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PCIT HAS T ERMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AS ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF TH E REVENUE ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED T HE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE OF LAW AN D HAS ALSO NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHICH R ENDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. BU T, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE ISSU E OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND AFTER CONSIDERING NECESSARY FACTS HAS D ENIED THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON THE GROUND THAT ASSES SEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WIT H SOLID EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, NOT MADE ANY ADDITION TO RETURNED INCOME FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAI D AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS SOURCE OF IN COME TO EXPLAIN ANY INVESTMENTS. THE SAID VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW. THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE V IEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO PCIT, TH E PCIT CANNOT 9 ITA NOS. 1212 TO 1218/CHNY/2018 TERM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW . 8. THE LEARNED A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SIMILA RLY AS REGARDS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS IN FIXED DEPOSITS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED HIS CATEGORICAL FINDINGS IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSE HAS EXPLAINED SOURCE OF INCOME FOR IN VESTMENTS IN FIXED DEPOSITS AND FURTHER MADE ADDITIONS TOWARDS ACCRUED INTEREST ON THE SAID FIXED DEPOSITS. THEREFORE, THE PCIT C ANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT EXAMINED THE ISSU E OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS IN FIXED DEPOSITS. THE LEARNED AR FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL EVIDENCES AND THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AFTER THOROUGHLY CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE A SSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REG ARDING SOURCE FOR INVESTMENTS IN FIXED DEPOSITS, WHICH IS EVIDE NT FROM THE FACT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN ASSE SSMENT ORDER AND MADE FURTHER ADDITIONS TOWARDS ACCRUED INTERES T ON INVESTMENTS. ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMIN ED THE ISSUE AND TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW, THEN THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR PCIT TO ASSUME JURISDICTION TO REVISE THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER UNDER 10 ITA NOS. 1212 TO 1218/CHNY/2018 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 ON THE GUISE OF LACK OF INQUIRY OR INADEQUATE INQUIRY. IN THIS CONTEXT, HE RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD. ( 2007) 295 ITR 282(SC) AND MALABAR INDUSTRIES CO.LTD. VS. CIT (2 000) 243 ITR 83(SC). 9. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE PCIT SUBMITTED THAT THE PCIT HAS BROUGHT OUT CLEAR FACTS TO THE EFFECT THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST S OF THE REVENUE BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO APPLY H IS MIND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN LIGHT OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS O F THE ACT REGARDING CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND INVESTMENTS IN FIX ED DEPOSITS WHICH RENDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS, INSOFA R AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THEREF ORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PCIT SHO ULD BE UPHELD. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED MATERI ALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW 11 ITA NOS. 1212 TO 1218/CHNY/2018 ALONG WITH THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED PCIT HAS INHERENT POWERS OF R EVISION U/S.263 OF THE ACT, IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS IT IS PR EJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IN ORDER TO GET JURISDICT ION U/S.263 OF THE ACT, THE PCIT HAS TO PROVE THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, THIS IS BECAUSE TWIN CONDITIONS EMBEDD ED U/S.263 SHOULD BE CUMULATIVELY SATISFIED IN ORDER TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT. IN CASE AN ORDER IS ERRO NEOUS, BUT IT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE OR VICE -VERSA, THEN THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR THE PCIT TO ASSUME JURISDICTION TO RE VISE THE ORDER. IN THIS LEGAL BACKGROUND, WE EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS TO WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVE NUE. AN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED AS ERRONEOUS, THEN IT SHOULD BE PATENTLY WRONG OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN LI GHT OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE AND TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW, THEN EVEN THO UGH VIEW TAKEN 12 ITA NOS. 1212 TO 1218/CHNY/2018 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE P CIT, THE PCIT CANNOT TERM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS. SI MILARLY, IF AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, BUT IF IT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE, THEN ALSO THERE IS NO POWER TO THE PCIT TO TERM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS. IN THIS CASE, THE P CIT HAS TERMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE ON TWO ISSUES. THE PCIT HAS FIRST QUESTIONED THE ISSUE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ALT HOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF AGRICU LTURAL INCOME, BUT FAILED TO MAKE ADDITIONS TO RETURNED INCOME AS UNAC COUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SECOND ISSUE QUESTIONED BY T HE PCIT IS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS IN FIXED DEPOSITS AND ACCOR DING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF INCOME FO R INVESTMENTS IN FIXED DEPOSITS. 11. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE LEGAL AND FACTUAL BAC KGROUND, ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER U/S.153A R.W.S 143(3), WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CON SIDERED THE ISSUE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISCUSSED THE 13 ITA NOS. 1212 TO 1218/CHNY/2018 ISSUE IN LIGHT OF VARIOUS EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSI ON THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS INCO RRECT. HOWEVER, CHOSE NOT TO MAKE ANY ADDITION TO RETURNED INCOME O N THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED STATEMENT OF AFFAIR S CONSIDERING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, AS SOURCE OF INCOME TO EXPLAIN ANY ASSET / INVESTMENTS. THE SAID VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW. THERE FORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ONCE AN ISSUE HAS BEEN EX AMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND CALLED FOR NECESSARY DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE A ND HAS APPLIED HIS MIND TO RELEVANT FACTS IN LIGHT OF RELEVANT PRO VISIONS OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW, WHICH MAY NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO PCIT, THEN ALS O PCIT CANNOT HOLD THE ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS IT IS PR EJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN THIS CASE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INSOFAR AS THE CLAIM OF AGRICULT URAL INCOME IS ONE 14 ITA NOS. 1212 TO 1218/CHNY/2018 OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW AND SUCH VIEW MAY NOT BE ACCEP TABLE TO THE PCIT, BUT THE SAME CANNOT BE A REASON FOR PCIT TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT . 12. COMING TO THE SECOND ISSUE QUESTIONED BY THE PC IT. THE PCIT HAS REVISED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED FOR CERTAIN EVIDENCES REGARDING INVESTMENTS IN FIXED DEPOSITS, BUT FAILED TO EXAMIN E SOURCE OF INCOME FOR UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS IN FIXED DEPOSI TS. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE PCIT IN THE LIGHT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS IN FIXED DEPOSITS AND FIND THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS IN FIXED DEPOSITS IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HAS RECORDED CATEGORICAL FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLA INED SOURCE OF INCOME FOR INVESTMENTS IN FDR. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AFTER ACCEPTING THE SOURCE OF INCOME FOR INVESTMENTS HAS VERIFIED THE FIXED DEPOSITS AND CONSEQUENT INTEREST ON SAID FDR AND HA S MADE ADDITIONS TOWARDS ACCRUED INTEREST ON THE SAID FIXE D DEPOSITS, WHEREVER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED THE ACCRUED I NTEREST FOR 15 ITA NOS. 1212 TO 1218/CHNY/2018 TAXATION. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF INVESTMENTS IN FIXED DEPO SITS AND AFTER CONSIDERING NECESSARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESS EE HAS ACCEPTED THE SOURCE OF INCOME FOR INVESTMENTS. THER EFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LEARNED PCIT IS INCORR ECT IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMI NED THE ISSUE AND APPLIED HIS MIND INSOFAR AS INVESTMENTS IN FIXE D DEPOSITS. WE FURTHER NOTED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS TAKEN ONE OF THE TWO VIEWS PERMISSIBLE IN LAW ON WHICH THE PCIT DOES NOT AGREE AND WHICH RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE, IT CANNOT B E TREATED AS ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF TH E REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS COMPLETE LY UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAX INDIA LTD.(SUPRA) . THIS VIEW IS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIES CO.LTD. VS. CIT (SU PRA), WHERE A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE COURT. 13. IN THIS CASE, ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS THERE IS NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS 16 ITA NOS. 1212 TO 1218/CHNY/2018 CONSIDERED TWO ISSUES QUESTIONED BY THE PCIT IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT FACTS HAS TAKEN ONE OF T HE POSSIBLE VIEWS. FURTHER, ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE O F THE POSSIBLE VIEWS, EVEN THOUGH THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIM IS NOT ACC EPTABLE TO THE PCIT, THEN THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR PCIT TO TERM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. FROM THE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS REG ARDS THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW. S IMILARLY, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING INVESTMENT S IN FIXED DEPOSITS IS ALSO A POSSIBLE VIEW. THEREFORE, WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE PCIT HAS ERRED IN REVISING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT AS ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS I T IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE O RDER PASSED BY THE PCIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND RESTORE T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.153A R.W. S.143(3) OF THE 17 ITA NOS. 1212 TO 1218/CHNY/2018 ACT. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS ALLOWED. ITA NOS. 1213 TO 1218/CHNY/2018: 14. THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPE ALS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND ISSUES WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY CON SIDERED IN ITA NO.1212/CHNY/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 . THE REASONS GIVEN BY US IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS OF ITA NO.1212/CHNY/2018 SHALL MUTATIS MUTANDIS APPLY TO THESE APPEALS AS WELL. THEREFORE, FOR THE SIMILAR REASONS, WE S ET ASIDE ORDER PASSED BY THE PCIT U/S.263 OF THE ACT AND RESTORE T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.153A R .W.S 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS . 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH DECEMBER, 2020 SD/- SD/- ( ) ( . ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) (G.MANJUNATHA ) / VICE-PRESIDENT $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & /CHENNAI, ' /DATED 4 TH DECEMBER, 2020 DS 18 ITA NOS. 1212 TO 1218/CHNY/2018 )* +* /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. , () /CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. * 1 /DR 6. /GF .