Ram Bharos Shashi, Jodhpur V. ITO,Ward-1(4), Jodhpur

ITA 17/JODH/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7285 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANCHITA KUMAR
• Keywords: Revision of order; Salary income; Set aside
• Section: 263; 142(1); 201; 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH , JODHPUR BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM ITA. NO. 17/JODH/2021 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 SHRI RAM BHAROS SHASHI 302, MARUDHAR APARTMENT, MOHANPURA PULIA, JODHPUR-342001. VS. THE ITO, WARD-1(4), JODHPUR. PAN/GIR NO.: ACLPSN 8727 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN (C.A.), SMT RAKSHA BIRLA (C.A.) & SHRI MOHIT SONI (ADV.) REVENUE BY : SMT. SANCHITA KUMAR (CIT) A DATE OF HEARING : 10/08/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/09/2021 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. PR.CIT-1, JODHPUR PASSED U/S 263 DATED 25.03.2021 P ERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD AR SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ASSESSED TO TAX REGULARLY AND HIS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME FROM SALARY, COMM ISSION, RENT AND INTEREST. THAT THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED F OR LIMITED SCRUTINY FOR ITA NO. 17/JODH/2021 SHRI RAM BHAROS SHASHI VS. ITO 2 VERIFICATION OF CASH DEPOSITS AND ACCORDINGLY, TH E AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) & 142(1) ALONG WITH QUERY LETTER. IN RESPONSE TO SUCH NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS OF CASH DEPOSITS & RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AS REQUIRED BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AO A FTER DUE VERIFICATION AND EXAMINING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE S AND EXPLANATIONS AS FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE REACHED THE CONCLUSION THA T THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE FROM VERIFIABLE SOURCES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR EARLIER YEARS AND THE AO D ULY VERIFIED THE SAME AND NO ADVERSE MATERIAL HAD BEEN FOUND AND ACCORDIN GLY THE AO ACCEPTED THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON 04/03/2021, THE LD PCIT HAD ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND O BSERVED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AS W ELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE REPLY IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTIC E AND EXPLAINED THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS WHICH ARE SUPPORTED WIT H DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. FURTHER, IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT IN THE IT R, ONLY THE PARTICULARS OF BUSINESS ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED. HOWEVER TH E PERSONAL STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT REPORTED BUT SAME WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND THE AO HAD VERI FIED AND TREATED THE SAME AS GENUINE AND ACCORDINGLY THE CLAIM HAD B EEN ACCEPTED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD PCIT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION AND EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN JUDICIAL MANN ER HAS HELD THE ITA NO. 17/JODH/2021 SHRI RAM BHAROS SHASHI VS. ITO 3 ORDER PASSED BY THE LD AO AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 4. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD EXERCIS ED THE QUASI- JUDICIAL POWER VESTED IN HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ARRIVED AT CONCLUSION ON THE BASIS OF LEGAL & VALID DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCES AND SUCH A CONCLUSION CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT FEEL SATISFIED WITH THE CONCL USION AND ALSO THERE WAS NO REVENUE LOSS AS THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS HAD BEEN DISCLOSED AND OFFERED FOR TAXATION AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW. 5. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD PCIT HAD NO T ANALYZED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATIONS AVAILABLE ON RECORD OF AO IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE & JUDICIAL MANNER AND MADE ARBITR ARILY ALLEGATION THAT THE BALANCE SHEETS PREPARED FOR THE AY 2014-15, 201 5-16 AND 2016-17 HAS GOT NO AUTHENTICITY AND THAT THE LD AO FAILED T O EXAMINE AND VERIFY THE SOURCE OF CASH IN HAND WHICH GOT ACCUMULATED ON 31.03.2014 AND SOURCE OF THE CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE IN T HE YEAR TO GET IT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263, THE LD PCIT HAD NOT RECORDED ANY SP ECIFIC FINDING AS TO HOW THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD AO IS ERRONEOUS WHIC H RESULTED IN LOSS OF THE REVENUE AND THEREFORE THE DIRECTION ISSUED B Y HIM IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL AND BEYOND HIS JURISDICTION. 6. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A SETTLED PO SITION OF LAW THAT REVISIONARY POWERS OF CIT U/S 263 CAN BE INVOKED ON LY WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIA L TO THE INTEREST OF ITA NO. 17/JODH/2021 SHRI RAM BHAROS SHASHI VS. ITO 4 THE REVENUE. SINCE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED TO BE ERRONEOUS BY PR CIT. THE S OLE GROUND OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE PR. CIT WAS THAT THE AO DID NOT MAKE PROPER ENQUIRY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INSTAN T CASE, THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE SINCE THE AO WAS CEASED OF THE MATTER AND H E HAS CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE RELEVANT MATERIAL WITH REGA RD TO AREAS WHICH WERE STATED BY THE PCIT IN HIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD PCIT WAS NOT SPECIFIC AS TO THE REASONS WHY THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE LD PCIT HAS NOT ARRIVED AT ANY INDEPEN DENT FINDING FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER S. 263. FURTHER, A THOROUG H ENQUIRY HAS BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE AO WHICH COMPRISED OF QUESTIONNAIR E TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED HIS REPLY, THEREAFTER THERE IS A NOTICE UNDER S. 142(1) WITH A QUERY LETTER TO WHICH AGAIN THE ASSES SEE HAS REPLIED TO THE QUERIES, SO IT IS EVIDENT THAT THERE HAS BEEN A DETAILED INVESTIGATION AND ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE AO. WHEN SUCH JUDICIAL LY EXERCISE HAS BEEN APPARENTLY MADE BY AO, THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE AO CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERES T OF THE REVENUE. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE EXERCISE OF JURI SDICTION UNDER S. 263 BY THE PCIT IS NOT VALID IN EYE OF LAW AND THE ORDE R SO PASSED THEREFORE MAY BE SET-ASIDE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, TH E LD AR HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS COURTS AND TRIBUNAL DECISIONS. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD. CIT/DR SUBMITTED THAT A PERU SAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 72.34 LAKHS IN HIS BANK ACCOU NT AND A MAJOR PART ITA NO. 17/JODH/2021 SHRI RAM BHAROS SHASHI VS. ITO 5 OF THIS CASH WAS CLAIMED TO BE OUT OF OPENING CASH IN HAND OF RS. 46.57 LAKHS. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LD PCIT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAIL IN PART A- BS OF HIS ITR FILED FOR THE A.Y. 2015-16 AND THE BALANCE SHEETS PREPARED AND FILED DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE AY 2014-15, 2015-16 AND 2016-17 HAS GOT NO AUTHENTICITY AS THE DETAILS MENTIONED IN THE M HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN/DECLARED IN THE RESPECTIVE ITRS. HENCE, THE C ASH IN HAND OF RS. 46.57 LAKHS CLAIMED TO BE AVAILABLE AS ON 31.03 .2014 REMAINED TO BE DULY EXAMINED AND VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE VERACITY OF THE CASH IN HAND IS FURTHER DOUBTFUL DUE TO THE REASON THAT IN THE BEGINNING OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR (2014-15), THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN VARIOUS AMOUNTS IN CASH FROM THE BANK, DESPITE HAVING CASH OF MORE THAN RS. 46.50 LAKHS CLAIMED TO BE AVAILABLE WITH HIM AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR. THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE AND VERIFY THE SOURCE OF CASH IN HAND WHICH GOT ACCUMULATED ON 31.03.2014 AND SOURCE OF THE CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE IN T HE YEAR TO GET IT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE LD PCIT HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE AO TO EXAMINE AND VER IFY THE SOURCE OF CASH IN HAND AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE BEGI NNING OF THE YEAR VIZ-A-VIZ SHOWN IN THE PART A-BS OF HIS ITR, CASH B OOK AND BANK STATEMENT OF EARLIER YEAR AND OF THE YEAR UNDER REF ERENCE WITH REGARD TO THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH FOR DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUN TS. THE LD CIT/DR THUS SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD PCIT AND IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE CONFIRMED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE BE DISMISSED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT THE LD PCIT H AS ISSUED THE SHOW- ITA NO. 17/JODH/2021 SHRI RAM BHAROS SHASHI VS. ITO 6 CAUSE STATING THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 72.34 LAKHS IN HIS BANK A CCOUNTS AND MAJOR PART OF THIS CASH HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO BE OUT OF OPE NING CASH IN HAND OF RS. 46.57 LAKHS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTIONS MADE DURING THE YEAR, HOWEVER, THE ASS ESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS IN PART A- BS OF HIS ITR FILE D FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E, A.Y. 2015-16. IT HAS BEEN FURT HER STATED BY THE LD PCIT IN THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE THAT THE BALANCE SHEE TS PREPARED AND FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS F OR THE AY 2014-15, 2015-16 AND 2016-17 HAS GOT NO AUTHENTICITY AS THE DETAILS MENTIONED IN THEM HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN/DECLARED IN THE RESPECT IVE ITRS. THEREFORE, THE CASH IN HAND OF RS. 46.57 LAKHS CLAI MED TO BE AVAILABLE AS ON 31.03.2014 REMAINED TO BE DULY EXAMINED AND V ERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, THE LD PCIT HAS OBSERV ED THAT GIVEN THAT THERE ARE CASH WITHDRAWALS DURING THE YEAR INSPITE OF HAVING OPENING CASH IN HAND, THE VERACITY OF OPENING CASH IN HAND HAS BEEN DOUBTED AND BASIS THE SAME, THE LD PCIT HAS ASSUMED THE JUR ISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND WE FIND THAT BASIS ALMOST IDENTICAL REA SONING AS SEEN FROM THE FINAL FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD PCIT, THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN HELD AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IT THUS APPEARS THAT THE LD PCIT HAD ALREA DY REACHED A DEFINITE CONCLUSION AT THE TIME OF ISSUE OF THE SHO W-CAUSE ITSELF THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO PASSED BY THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND THE SUBM ISSIONS SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS DOE SNT FIND ANY FAVOUR WITH HIM. ITA NO. 17/JODH/2021 SHRI RAM BHAROS SHASHI VS. ITO 7 9. NOW COMING TO THE REASONING SO ADOPTED BY THE LD PCIT, WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE LD PCIT HAS ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS DURING THE YEAR AS WELL AS BALANCE SHEE TS AND ITRS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND OTHER TWO YEARS, THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CASH DEPOSITS HAVE ALSO BEEN MADE OUT OF OPENI NG CASH IN HAND HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAIL IN PART A- BS OF HIS ITR FILED FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E, A.Y. 2015-16 AND SECONDLY, THE BALANCE SHEETS FOR THE THREE YEARS INCLUDING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION HAS NO AUTHENTICITY AS THE DETAILS MENTIONED THEREIN HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN/DECLARED IN THE RESPECTIVE ITRS. IN THIS REG ARD, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD A/R IS THAT IN THE ITR FORM, ONLY THE PARTIC ULARS OF BUSINESS ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED, HOWEVER THE PERSONAL STATE MENT OF AFFAIRS AS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE R EPORTED AND DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THESE PERSONAL STATEMEN T OF AFFAIRS FOR THREE FINANCIAL YEARS SHOWING THE CASH IN HAND AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS WERE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH CASH BOOK, LEDGER, BANK S TATEMENTS AND COPY OF ITRS WHICH HAS BEEN DULY VERIFIED BY THE AO AND NO ADVERSE FINDING HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE AO. 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS REPORTED INCOME FROM SALARY, C OMMISSION, RENT AND INTEREST DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. ONE MAY CHALLENGE WHETHER THE DISCLOSURE SO MADE IS ADEQUATE OR NOT AND WHAT KIND OF DISCLOSURE AND DETAILS TO BE FURNI SHED. IN OUR VIEW, HOWEVER, THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS NOT ABOUT THE DISCL OSURE REQUIREMENT AND DISCLOSURE WHICH IS ACTUALLY MADE BY THE ASSESS EE WHILE FILING HIS ITA NO. 17/JODH/2021 SHRI RAM BHAROS SHASHI VS. ITO 8 ITR RATHER THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE AO HAS DULY EXA MINED THE DETAILS SO FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PART OF HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND WHERE REQUIRED, CALLING FOR FURTHER INFORMATION/DOCUMENTA TION AND EXAMINATION THEREOF DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . BEING PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 263, THE MATTER HAS TO BE EXAMINED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO WHETHER NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AND EXAMINATION AS REASONABLY EXPECTED HAVE BEEN CA RRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHETHER HE HAS CONDUCTED THE PROCEEDINGS IN A PROPER, REASONABLE AND JUDICIOUS MANNER KEEPING I N MIND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 11. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 142(1) DA TED 31.05.2017 ASKING FOR COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME, COMPUTATION OF INCOME, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BANK STATEMENTS AND TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF HIS RE TURN OF INCOME, COMPUTATION OF INCOME, BANK STATEMENTS, PERSONAL CA SH BOOK, LEDGER, COPY OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEETS FOR A.Y 2014-15, A.Y 2015- 16 AND A.Y 2016-17 SHOWING THE OPENING AND CLOSING CASH IN HAND AND HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CASH DE POSITS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. INFACT, THE LD PCIT HAS A LSO ACKNOWLEDGED THIS FACT THAT THE DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS IN RESPE CT OF CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS HAVE BEEN DULY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSE E DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE SUBMISSIONS SO MADE HAV E BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AO AS EVIDENT FROM CLEAR AFFIRMATIO N THEREOF BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE AO HAS STATED T HAT THE A/R OF THE ITA NO. 17/JODH/2021 SHRI RAM BHAROS SHASHI VS. ITO 9 ASSESSEE HAS ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION ALONGWITH COPY OF RETURN, CA SH BOOK, LEDGER, PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET, BANK STATEMENTS ETC. AND TH E SUBMISSION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN EXAMINED AND VER IFIED KEEPING IN VIEW THE REASONS FOR WHICH SCRUTINY SELECTION WAS I NITIALLY DONE. WE THEREFORE FIND THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN DULY EXAMIN ED BY THE AO WITH FOCUS ON CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS TRANSACTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR FOR WHICH THE MATTER WAS S ELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY. FURTHER, WHERE THE AO HAS EXAMINED THE P ERSONAL CASH BOOK MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWING CASH IN HAND, DE POSITS AND WITHDRAWALS MADE DURING THE YEAR AND THE OPENING AN D CLOSING BALANCES OF CASH IN HAND ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THE RESPECTIV E BALANCE SHEETS OF PREVIOUS AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS TAKEN ALL REASONABLE STEPS AS ARE EXPECTED TO BE TAKEN TO VER IFY THE SUBJECT TRANSACTIONS IN TERMS OF NATURE AND SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSITS. 12. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THE BALANCE SH EETS NOT JUST REFLECT THE CASH IN HAND RATHER REFLECT THE STATE OF AFFAIR S IN TERMS OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AS ON THE CLOSE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR I NCLUDING THE NET RESULTS OF THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E YEAR. THEREFORE, WHERE THE NET RESULTS OF THE ACTIVITIES SO UNDERTAK EN HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD PCIT AS REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IN TERMS OF NET INCOME AND FURTHER, WHERE NO ADVERSE FINDING HAS BE EN RECORDED REGARDING THE STATUS OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES, IT WOULD BE INCORRECT TO HOLD THAT THE BALANCE SHEET IS NOT AUTHENTIC MERELY FOR THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO REPORT CERTAIN DETAILS IN TH E RETURN OF INCOME. ITA NO. 17/JODH/2021 SHRI RAM BHAROS SHASHI VS. ITO 10 13. IN LIGHT OF AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND IN THE EN TIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AND EXAMINATION AS REASONABLY E XPECTED HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HA S TAKEN A PRUDENT, JUDICIOUS AND REASONABLE VIEW AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE ORDER SO PASSED U/S 143 (3) CANNOT BE HELD AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE ST OF REVENUE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD PCIT U/S 263 IS ACC ORDINGLY SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUS TAINED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/09/2021. SD/- SD /- ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JODHPUR DATED:- 07/09/2021. *SANTOSH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. A. THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAM BHAROS SHASHI, JODHPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-1(4), JODHPUR. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, JODHPUR. 6. GUARD FILE { ITA NO. 17/JODH/2021} BY ORDER, ASST. REGISTRAR