Chandrakant Ramakant Pise, Solapur V. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-4, Pune

ITA 267/PUN/2021

AI Insights

Chandrakant Ramakant Pise appealed against the orders of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune, which were issued under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals pertained to the assessment years 2011-12 and 2013-14. The PCIT had found the Assessing Officer's re-assessments erroneous as they did not adequately investigate the cash deposits claimed by Pise as agricultural income. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and referenced the case of M/s. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT to support the PCIT's decision. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, agreeing that the Assessing Officer's inquiries were insufficient.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135567 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2022
• Other Referred Cases: M/s. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147; 263; 2; 143(3); 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण“ए” ायपीठ पुणे म । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND G.D.PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं . / ITA Nos.267 & 268/PUN/2021 िनधा रणवष / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2013-14 Chandrakant Ramakant Pise, 1550/A/1, Subhash Nagar, Barshi – 413 401 Maharashtra PAN : ACBPP2477P Vs Pr.CIT-4, Pune Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Krishna V. Gujarathi Revenue by Shri Pankaj Kumar – DR Date of hearing 29-11-2022 Date of pronouncement 07-12-2022 आदेश / ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM: These assessee’s twin appeals arise against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune’s separate orders dated 31-03-2021 and 30-03-2021 in Din & Order Nos. ITBA/REV/F /REV5/2020-21/1032114197(1) and No.ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2020- 21/1031970538(1) for A.Yrs.2011-12 & 2013-14; respectively in proceedings u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee raises the following identical substantial grounds in both these appeals : ITA Nos.267 & 268/PUN/2021 Chandrakant Ramakant Pise 2 “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune 4 has erred in passing order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 was neither erroneous nor it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The appellant requests your honour to kindly drop the proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Without prejudice to the first ground of appeal, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune 4 has erred in passing the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that there was no lack of proper inquiry and verification as alleged by the Assessing Officer. The appellant requests your honour to kindly drop the proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add, amend, alter, or raise any additional ground or grounds of appeal or delete or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal." 3. Relevant facts qua these assessee’s appeals are found to be in a very narrow compass indeed wherein the learned PCIT revision directions terming the Assessing Officer’s corresponding regular re- assessments, both dated 08-12-2017, as erroneous ones causing prejudice to the interest of revenue, on the ground that he had not carried out detailed inquiries regarding the taxpayer’s cash deposits, which were claimed and accepted as representing his agricultural income in both these assessment years. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved. 4. Learned counsel vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the PCIT herein has erred in law and on facts in setting into motion ITA Nos.267 & 268/PUN/2021 Chandrakant Ramakant Pise 3 his section 263 revision jurisdiction alleging lack of inquiry at the Assessing Officer’s end despite the fact that the latter had framed section 143(3) r.w.s.147 re-assessments on the very issue of verification of cash deposits only. Mr. Gujarathi highlighted the fact that this assessee had claimed to have sold his agricultural produce in both these assessment years which was rightly accepted by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, this is certainly not an instance of lack of inquiry or inadequate inquiry, as the case may be, as alleged at the Revenue’s behest in light of the PCIT’s revision directions. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival contentions and find no merit in assessee’s stand. We first of all find that apart from lack of inquiry or erroneous decision taken by the assessing officer concerned attracting section 263 revision jurisdiction; simultaneously, in light of M/s.Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC), the legislature has also inserted Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01-06-2016 that the foregoing former limb would also include inadequate inquiries as well in light of sub-clauses (a) and (b) thereof. We further make it clear that the learned counsel could not produce any material before us which could indicate Assessing Officer to have reconciled the assessee’s claim of impugned cash deposits vis-à-vis cash sales of agricultural produce after examining the corresponding expenses and other relevant details ITA Nos.267 & 268/PUN/2021 Chandrakant Ramakant Pise 4 including the revenue record of the concerned agricultural lands in issue. The assessee has also not placed on record any specific queries raised by the Assessing Officer by way of section 143(2) as well as 142(1) notice(s), as the case may be. Faced with this situation, we conclude that the learned PCIT’s revision directions herein holding the foregoing re- assessments as erroneous ones causing prejudice to the interest of revenue, hardly deserve to be interfered in these peculiar facts and circumstances. The same stand upheld therefore. 6. Delay of 17 days each in filing of both these appeals stand condoned in the larger interest of justice. 7. These assessee’s twin appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07 th December, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (G.D.PADMAHSHALI) (S S GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दनांक / Dated : 07 th December, 2022 Satish ITA Nos.267 & 268/PUN/2021 Chandrakant Ramakant Pise 5 आदेशक ितिलिपअ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A) concerned. 4. The Pr. CITconcerned. 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध,आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, “ए” ब च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT,Pune. S.No Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 30.11.2022 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 06.12.2022 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order