Dhanaji Narsingh Rao Deshmukh (HUF), Pandharpur V. Pr Commissioner of Income-Tax -4, Pune

ITA 127/PUN/2021

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Dhanaji Narsingh Rao Deshmukh (HUF) against the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune, which revised the Assessing Officer's assessment for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The primary issue was the correctness of the agricultural income claimed by the assessee, which was under limited scrutiny. The Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries and found the agricultural income from grapes and mangoes to be correctly accounted, with payments received through banking channels. The PCIT, however, questioned the rate of the assessee's grape produce, leading to the revision of the assessment. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and evidence, including crop bills, reversed the PCIT's directions and upheld the original assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137871 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: AllowedAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 26-10-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Malabar Industrial Company Limited vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMASHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.127/PUN/2021 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Dhanaji Narsingh Rao Deshmukh (HUF), A/P Kesegaon, Kasegaon, Tal Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur. PIN 413 305 PAN AAEHD9364A vs The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune. Applicant Respondent Assessee by : Shri S.N. Puranik Revenue by : Shri Pankaj Kumar Date of hearing : 29.11.2022 Date of pronouncement : 12.12.2022 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17 is directed against the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax [“in short “PCIT”] Pune-4, Pune’s order dated 31.03.2021 passed in case No. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2020-21/1032111993(1), in proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”]. 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the Learned PCIT’s impugned revision direction herein have held that the Assessing Officer’s regular assessment in issue dated 05.12.2018 is an erroneous one causing prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. We find during the course of arguments that there is hardly any much need for us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix. A 2 ITA.No.127/PUN/2021 Dhanaji Narsingh Rao Deshmukh (HUF), Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur. perusal of pages 7 to 8 in assessee's paper book indicates that the sole issue in it’s limited scrutiny was only as to whether the claim of “agricultural income” is correct. 3.1. Faced with the situation and in the light of clinching Assessing Officer’s assessment order dated 05.12.2018 suggest that he had indeed carried out necessary enquiries by issuing notice(s) u/s.143(2) r.w.s.142(1) of the Act. He further examined the assessee's 7 th /12 th extracts grapes sown sales for the purpose of deciding the correctness of his agricultural income derived from sale of grapes/Bedana and mango etc. The Assessing Officer had also concluded in his assessment order that the assessee had received his payments through banking channel. Coming to the learned PCIT’s detailed revision directions, we note with the able assistance coming from both the parties that he has questioned the rate of the assessee's grapes produce as not properly examined during scrutiny. Learned CIT-DR could hardly dispute that there is no material at all in the case file which could led the PCIT to dispute the assessee's details of the grapes sown and sold by way of banking channel in the relevant previous year. 3.2. Faced with the situation, we are of the opinion that the hon'ble apex court’s landmark decision in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Limited vs., CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) holding that an assessment has to be both an erroneous one as well as 3 ITA.No.127/PUN/2021 Dhanaji Narsingh Rao Deshmukh (HUF), Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur. causing prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, simultaneously before the prescribed authority herein i.e., CIT or PCIT, as the case may be, decides to set his section 263 revision jurisdiction in motion, squarely applies herein when the PCIT has not been able to pinpoint any specific default on the Assessing Officer’s part in carrying out necessary enquiries in sec.143(3) assessment in issue. We thus reverse the Learned PCIT’s impugned revision directions in light of the assessee's detailed submissions made before the Assessing Officer running into 15 pages [including of the crop bills of the agricultural produce] and restore the Assessing Officer’s assessment dated 05.12.2018 as a necessary corollary. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12 th December, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (GD PADMASHALI) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 12 th December, 2022 VBP/- Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5 . DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Pune.