Shri Nirav Jayendrabhai Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Pr. CIT(Central ), Ahmedabad

ITA 197/AHD/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Nirav Jayendrabhai Shah against the order of the PCIT, Ahmedabad, which deemed the assessment for the year 2018-2019 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The issue arose from a cash payment of Rs. 26,42,000 made by the assessee for property acquisition, which was not recorded in the assessment year in question. The PCIT's decision was based on an Excel sheet found during a search at the premises of the developers, M/s Navratna Organisers and Developers Pvt. Ltd., indicating the payment. However, the assessee's counsel argued that the document pertained to an earlier financial year, 2014-15, and thus, any discrepancies should be addressed in that year, not 2018-2019. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, leading to the quashing of the PCIT's order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 134523 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Documents seized
• Section: 263; 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद ᭠यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ B’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI T.R SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 197/AHD/2022 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Nirav Jayendrabhai Shah, 62, Suruchi Flats, B/h. Doctor House, Ellisbridge, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380006. PAN: ABTPS0217P Vs. P.C.I.T, Central, Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt with Shri Vartik Choksi, A.Rs Revenue by : Shri Sudhendu Das, Sr.D.R सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 14/06/2023 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 23/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Learned PCIT, Ahmedabad, arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2018-2019. ITA no.197/AHD/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 2 2. The only interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. PCIT erred in holding the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act as erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. In the present case, the Ld. PCIT on perusal of the assessment record found that the assessee has made cash payment to the Developers against the acquisition of the property amounting to Rs. 26,42,000/- but the addition for the same was not made by the AO during the assessment proceedings. The view of the Ld. PCIT was based on the documents seized in the search proceedings from the premises of the developers being M/s Navratna Organisers and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (for short NODPL) wherein Excel Sheet bearing name x100004226.xls was found containing the cash payment made by the assessee. Thus, the Ld. PCIT held the assessment framed by the AO as erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 54 and submitted that the Excel Sheet found from the premises of the Developer (NODPL) was pertaining to the Financial Year 2014-15 and therefore if at all any addition is proposed to be made then the same can be made in that Financial Year and not the year in dispute. Accordingly, the Ld. AR contended that there is no error causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue as far as the year in dispute is concerned. 6. On the contrary, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authority below. ITA no.197/AHD/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 3 7. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present case, it was alleged by the Ld. PCIT, that the assessee has made cash payment of Rs. 26,42,000/- which was not recorded in the books of accounts, but the AO failed to take a note of the same in the assessment proceedings. On perusal of the excel sheet based on seized documents found from the premises of the NODPL, which was used against the assessee, we hold that the transaction recorded therein pertain to the Financial Year 2014-2015, which is placed on page 20 of the paper book. Therefore, if at all any addition is warranted, the same can be made in the relevant year to which the financial transaction pertains with respect to the cash payment not disclosed in the books of accounts. Accordingly, we hold that there is no error in the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act for the year under consideration which required revision under the provision of section 263 of the Act. Hence, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. PCIT and hold that the same is not maintainable. Thus, we quashed the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 23/06/2023 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (T.R SENTHIL KUMAR) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 23/06/2023 Manish