SHRI MALKIAT SINGH S/O SHRI PIARA SINGH, JALANDHAR V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 23/ASR/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8672 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT BHARDWAR
• Section: 147; 148; 263; 154; 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 23/ASR/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sh. Malkiat Singh, Jalandhar [PAN: AMOPJ1590J] Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Rohit Bhardwar, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Rohit Sharma, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 13.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 10.08.2022 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal is directed against the order of Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar, {in brevity PCIT} bearing DIN & order no. ITBA/REV/REV5/2020-21/1031844842(1) date of order 28.03.2021, order passed u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity of the Act) for the Assessment year 2010-11. The impugned order was originated from the order of Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Phagwara (in brevity A.O) order passed u/s.147/143(3) of the Act date of order 19.03.2016. Sh. Malkiat Singh S/O Sh. Piara Singh Asstt. Year 2010-11 PAN:AMOPJ1590J 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT), Jalandhar-I u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 setting aside the assessment framed u/s. 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is without jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab-initio. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. PCIT erred in setting aside the aforesaid issue even after recording prima facie finding on the merits of the issue in favour of the assessee. 3. That the impugned order passed by the ld. PCIT is vague, non-speaking, unreasoned and without dealing with the submission of the appellant and hence, the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 4. That on the4 facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment proceedings framed and notice u/s. 148 and assessment order thereto u/s. 147 w.r.s 143(3) by the Income-tax Officer, Phagwara is without jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab-initio. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. PCIT erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue on the issue of cash deposits of Rs.9,20,000/- in saving bank account, amount of Rs.17,70,162/- invested for purchase of Bond for the financial year 209-10 and Capital ;Gain of Rs.36.790/- and Sh. Malkiat Singh S/O Sh. Piara Singh Asstt. Year 2010-11 PAN:AMOPJ1590J erred in exercising jurisdiction u/s. 263 by setting aside the aforesaid issue even though the same had been discussed and scrutinized and examined along with the supported documentary evidences by the Assessing Officer in detail while framing the assessment u/s. 147 w.r.s 143(3) of the Act. 6. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. PCIT has erred in arbitrarily with imposing his opinion considering that the order passed on issue of cash deposits by the ld. AO was without any verification and proper analysis and assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act on that basis which is against the law. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and din law, the ld. PCIT failed to point out any specific error or mistake in the order of the Assessment order in assessing the cash deposits of Rs.9,20,000/- and amount of Rs.17.70.162/- invested for purchase of Bond and Capital Gain of Rs.36,790/-, which is sine que non for initiation of proceedings u/s.263 of the Act and without specific satisfaction of the twin conditions as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue to show that enhancement or modification of assessment or cancellation of assessment or directing a fresh assessment. 8. That the ld. PCIT erred on facts and in law in setting aside the assessment order to be redone afresh without reasons to justify exercise of revisional powers by him to reopen a concluded assessment and not merely setting aside the aforesaid issue of cash deposit of Rs.9,20,000/- which is nowhere in the facts of the case. Sh. Malkiat Singh S/O Sh. Piara Singh Asstt. Year 2010-11 PAN:AMOPJ1590J 9. That the learned Principal CIT, Jalandhar-I erred on fact and law in assuming jurisdiction under s. 263 to pass an order for setting aside the order under s. 143(3) of the AO because the learned Principal CIT in the order under s. 263 has substituted his opinion for the opinion of the AO by reappraising evidence on record. Hence, the action of the PCIT in setting aside the order of the AO is against the parameters of the revisional jurisdiction of the PCIT as provided under s. 263 of the Act and the order is liable to be quashed. 10. Without prejudicial, that the ld. PCIT erred on facts and in law in setting aside the assessment order to be redone afresh without specifying what enquiries the AO has not made and give reasons to justify exercise of revisional powers by him to reopen a concluded assessment and not merely setting aside the aforesaid issue of cash deposits of Rs.9,20,000/- in the saving bank account amount of Rs.17,70,162/- invested for purchase of bond. 11. For that the order of learned ld. PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act is bad in jurisdiction, law, facts and procedure. 12. The proceedings are barred by limitation u/s. 263(2) hence revision proceedings initiated against assessee are void-ab-initio. 13. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend and/or alter any Ground of appeal before it is heard and dispose of. Sh. Malkiat Singh S/O Sh. Piara Singh Asstt. Year 2010-11 PAN:AMOPJ1590J The assessee also taken an additional ground, which is extracted as under:- 1. That the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar-I erred in not disposing off the request of the assesse made with application u/s. 154 dt. 11.05.2021 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for rectification of the order u/s. 263 dt. 28.03.2021 and not disposing off it till date which is against the law and time barred. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assesse was assessed u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2010-11. In the assessment addition was made on Capital gain earned amount of Rs.36,790/-, which is liable to tax u/s. 111A @15%. The assessee had deposited cash amount of Rs.9,20,000/- in his saving bank account & invested Rs. 17,70,162/- for purchase of Bond through Kotak Mahindra Bank during the financial year. Accordingly the assessee earned short term capital gain amount of Rs. 36,790/- by selling of mutual fund. During the assessment assessee disclosed that assessee is NRI and is residing Germany. Whenever he reached India, he collected some Euro and converted into Indian Currency and deposit in bank for purchasing Bonds. But no verification was done by the ld AO related deposit of cash in bank account of assessee during assessment proceeding.The ld. PCIT had set aside the order of ld. AO on the ground that source of cash deposited was unverified amount of Rs.9,20,000/- in the saving Sh. Malkiat Singh S/O Sh. Piara Singh Asstt. Year 2010-11 PAN:AMOPJ1590J bank account. As per the ld. PCIT deposit of Rs.9,20,000/- in the bank account of the assesse is unverified and unexplained. The ld.PCIT issued show cause notice on dated 16.03.2021. In reply the assesse filed written submissions against the notice of the ld. PCTI. After considering the record, the ld. PCIT passed the order by setting aside the order of ld. AO for erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. During the hearing ld. Counsel filed a paper book containing page 1 to 59, which is kept in the record. The ld. counsel mentioned that assessee is an NRI and the status of the assessee is nonresidentand income tax jurisdiction would be International Taxation. The Assessing Authority had completed assessment without jurisdiction. But, territorial jurisdiction is vested with the ld. AO. There is no information was made to the Assessing Authority related to the change of status of the assessee and PAN was not amended. Against show cause notice of the ld PCIT, the assessee filed a submission which is at page no. 41 to 53 of APB. The ld. Counsel further relied on first page para 1 of assessment order, which is extracted hereunder: Sh. Malkiat Singh S/O Sh. Piara Singh Asstt. Year 2010-11 PAN:AMOPJ1590J “In this case, information was available with this office, that the assesse had made cash Transaction of Rs.9,20,000/- in his saving bank account no. 007901001104 maintained with ICICI Bank, Nurmahal also invested an amount of Rs.17,70,162/- for purchase of Bond through Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. maintained with account no. 025030120000909. During the financial year 2009-10. Copy of assessee’s above mentioned bank account was called for from the concerned bank by issue of notice u/s. 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Verification letters were issued to the assesse on 23.11.2016 to explain the source of said cash deposits. In response, the assesse had not filed any reply/explanation. Thereafter, verification letter dated 09.03.2017 was again issued under section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 after obtaining approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jalandhar. But on the fixed date, neither any attended nor any written explanation received in his office.” The counsel mentioned that the cash deposit in bank account of assessee was discussed by the ld. AO in the assessment order. The said order is not erroneous. 4. The ld. CIT DR argued that the issue was never be agitated related to status of the assesse before any of the Authority. The assessee never amended its PAN data nor any information passed to the Revenue Authority about the status of asssessee. The ld. AO has territorial jurisdiction over the assesse. Related to the Sh. Malkiat Singh S/O Sh. Piara Singh Asstt. Year 2010-11 PAN:AMOPJ1590J additional ground, the ld. Counsel mentioned that there is no relevancy related to the additional ground for adjudication of the order u/s. 263. The ld. AO passed the order of assessment without proper verification of cash deposit of the assesse. In this way, assessment order is erroneous and amount of Rs.9,20,000/- is taxable. So, order is also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5. We heard the rival submission and relied on the documents available in the record. The ld. counsel had filed an additional ground which is not at all relevant with the appeal before us. Accordingly, the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed. Related to other grounds, wethoughtfullypursued the document and orders. The cash deposited amount to Rs.9,20,000/- was not verified in assessment by the ld. AO. The assessee was failed to take any relevance related to verification of cash deposited of the assesse. Accordingly the order passed by ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the point of jurisdiction of ld. AO, the assessee did not disclose its status before revenue not even amended PAN data. The jurisdiction of the assessment order was never challenged in any of the authority by the AO. We cannot say assessment without the jurisdiction in this stage. But the order of section 263 was within jurisdiction of PCIT, on basis of Sh. Malkiat Singh S/O Sh. Piara Singh Asstt. Year 2010-11 PAN:AMOPJ1590J territorial jurisdiction of the AO. We find no infirmity in the order of ld. PCIT passed u/s. 263. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA no.23/ASR/2021 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10 .08.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Anikesh Banerjee) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr. PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(A), (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T (6) The Guard File True Copy By Order