Sh. Pawan Kumar, Ambala V. ITO, Ward 2, Ambala

ITA 405/CHANDI/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3327 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Period of limitation; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record; Time period of passing order
• Section: 147; 148; 263; 44AD; 139; 143(3); 142(1); 12A; 143(2); 13

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च瀃डीगढ़ 瀈यायपीठ च瀃डीगढ़ 瀈यायपीठच瀃डीगढ़ 瀈यायपीठ च瀃डीगढ़ 瀈यायपीठ , च瀃डीगढ़ च瀃डीगढ़च瀃डीगढ़ च瀃डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर आयकरआयकर आयकर अपील अपीलअपील अपील सं संसं सं./ ITA No. 405/CHD/2021 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Pawan Kumar, House No. 72, Village – Nakhrauli, Shampur Naurd Narainagram, Ambala (Haryana). बनाम VS The ITO, Ward-2, Ambala. 瀡थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: BIFPK8354M अपीलाथ牸/Appellant 灹瀄यथ牸/Respondent िनधा榁琇रती क琉 ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, Shri Ashok Goyal, CA & Shri Vaibhav Aggarwal,CA राज瀡व क琉 ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR तारीख/Date of Hearing : 13.07.2022 उदघोषणा क琉 तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश/ORDER PER DIVA SINGH The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 17.03.2021 of ld. PCIT, Panchkula pertaining to 2011-12 assessment year is assailed on the following grounds : 1. The Learned CIT u/s 263 has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. C.I.T. erred in law and on facts in wrongly passing the order u/s. 263 qua the amount of cash deposit- of Rs 24,79,000/- as unexplained cash deposit. ITA 405 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 2 of 21 3. The appellant craves leave to add to or amend the aforesaid grounds before disposal of the appeal. 2. Before addressing the specific grievance of the assessee, it is necessary to first address the delay of 194 days pointed out by the Registry in the filing of the present appeal by the assessee. 3. The ld. AR inviting attention to the Condonation of Delay application on record submitted that the order passed on 12.03.2021 was received by the assessee on 31.03.2021 during the pandemic conditions. Accordingly, relying on the legal position as considered by the Apex Court and the Hon'ble High Court, it was submitted that the said period was to be excluded for counting limitation. The decision of the Apex Court in terms of Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India being the law of the land, it was submitted, protected the specific period. It was further submitted that the statutory time available to the assessee was also available. Thus, even if there is some delay, it is covered by these facts on record. The Hon'ble’ble Supreme Court has exercised its powers under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the constitution of India, in the case of 'In Re" Cognizance for extension of limitation', Miscellaneous Application no. 665 of 2021 In Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) ITA 405 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 3 of 21 No. 3 of 2020, dated 23 r d September, 2021 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “8. Therefore, we dispose of the M.A. No. 665 of 2021 with the following directions:- I. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 03.10.2021. II. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 03.10.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 03.10.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. III. X X X X X X X IV. X X X X X X X 3.1 Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the jurisdictional High Court as clarified vide order/Clarification No.30/RG/Spl.Misc. dated 09.07.2020 as under : 'it is clarified for information of the learned Advocates, Litigants and General Public that the limitation for filing the cases/applications before the Hon'ble High Court and the Sub-ordinated Courts stand extended w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders, in pursuant to Order 23.03.2020 and 06.05.2020 passed in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020 which is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it will be subject to modification of orders by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if any. BY ORDER OF HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE.' Further the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court, after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has again clarified vide order, No. lOl/RS/Spl./Misc. dated 29.09.201 that 'ln continuation of Order No. 30/RG/ Spl./Misc. dated 09.07.2020, Order No. 65/RG/Spl./Misc dated 12.03.2021 and Order No. 89/RG/Spl./Misc dated 14.07.2021 regarding computation of period of limitation in filling the cases; it is brought to the notice of all the learned advocates, litigants and General public that Hon'ble the Supreme Court has disposed of the "Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in Suo-Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 in RE: Cognizance for extension of Limitation", vide judgment dated 23.09.2021 by issuing the following directions. ITA 405 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 4 of 21 In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 03.10.2021. II. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days form 03.10.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 03.10.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. III. The period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Acts, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period (s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 2. The registry of this Hon'ble High Court and the Subordinate Courts in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh shall comply with the aforesaid directions for computation of period of limitation strictly.” 3.2 Accordingly, it was his submission that the present appeal filed by the assessee may be treated as having been filed within time. 3.3 The ld. CIT-DR considering the facts and the content of the application agreed that the delay can be condoned as it is covered by the decisions in the pandemic period. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Taking into conside ration the position of law as settled by the Apex Court and considering the limitation period available to the assessee under the Statute, the delay stands addressed and is condoned. Ordered accordingly. ITA 405 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 5 of 21 5. The parties, accordingly, were directed to argue the appeal on merits. 6. The ld. AR inviting attention to the record submitted that the Revisionary Powers have been exercised arbitrarily and contrary to law. Hence, it was his prayer that the order be quashed. 6.1 Referring to the impugned order read alongwith the assessment order, it was submitted that on this very issue the assessee's case specifically had been looked into by the AO. The Assessing Officer after seeking approval etc. initiated the proceedings as the AIR information flagged showed that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.24,79,000/- in Haryana Gramin Bank during the relevant period. The AO noticing that the deposits had been made by a non filer of returns, issued notice to the assessee to explain the deposits etc. In response thereto, return was filed. The AO issued notices to the assessee to explain the deposits vis-à-vis the returned income. The source of the deposit was fully enquired into. The explanation offered by the assessee was considered and only thereafter the assessment order was passed. 6.2 Reading from the assessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) dated 28.11.2018, it was his submission that it ITA 405 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 6 of 21 is mentioned in the assessment order itself; “On the basis of AIR information, proceedings u/s 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 were initiated by recording reasons. Notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee for the A. Y. 2011-12 on 22.03.2018 after obtaining approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Panchkula which was served upon the assessee on 23.03.2018 . As no return of income was filed by the assessee statutory notices u/s 142(1) were issued on 21.06.2018” Reading further from the assessment order, it was re-iterated that questionnaire dated 29.08.2018 and 27.09.2018 was issued to the assessee and in response thereto, the assessee filed its return on 22.11.2018. Reading from the assessment order again, it was submitted that thereafter statutory notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the AO to further e xamine the return filed on 22.11.2018. The reply of the assessee was considered with the facts and evidences on record and the returned income of Rs.2,08,806/- thereafter was accepted. 6.3 The relevant extract from the assessment order reflecting these facts was relied upon to show that due enquiries were made. The relevant extract is reproduced he reunder for completeness : “..........Again ' statutory notice was issued alongwith brief questionnaire on 29.08.2018 and 27.09.2018. Return of income declaring income at Rs. 2,08,806/- filed by the assessee on 22.11.2018. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 22.11.2018. Sh. Mandeep Singla CA attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It has been submitted by the AR of the assessee that during the year under consideration the assessee was ITA 405 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 7 of 21 doing the trading of cloth and the amount deposited in cash was sale proceeds of the business which have, been declared in the return u/s 44AD 2 After discussion and keeping in view the information filed by the assessee the returned income of Rs.2,08,806/- is accepted. The assessee had taxable income during the period under consideration but neither the assessee filed return of income nor taxes were paid by him. The assessee filed the return after issue of notice u/s 148 by the department. Therefore, I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed the particular of income. Hence Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T Act are initiated separately.” 6.4 Inviting attention to the synopsis filed and the responses of the assessee made to the queries raised by the AO alongwith the copy of the bank passbook available to the AO as well as the ld. PCIT and also filed before the ITAT, it was submitted, that pages 38-39 are copies of the notices issued to the assessee. The reasons recorded for initiating proceedings u/s 147 for which approval was sought from the ld. PCI T Panchkula was referred to. It was submitted that it is evident from the order as well as the record that these very issues stood fully enquired into by the AO. 6.5 Inviting attention to the reply filed to the AO in response to the query raised, it was submitted that the assessee has given all the information required: 1) Nature & Activity of Business- As per your notice under section 142(1), the assessee is a Trading Concern and earning Business income from that. 2) Copy of Income Tax Return- As per Information of Copy of Income Tax Return filed under section 148 of the I.T. act 1961 for the A.Y. 2011-12 Already Submitted. 3) Copy of Computation of income- ITA 405 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 8 of 21 As per Information of Copy of Computation of Income filed under section 148 of the I.T. act 1961 for the A.Y. 2011-12 Already Submitted. 4) Copies of All Bank Account Statements:- I have One Saving bank accounts with Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank having A/C NO. - 81240100022370 out of which the amount of cash deposited during the A.Y 2011-12. The copy of these bank account statement are enclosed. 6.6 Inviting further attention to the copy of the Bank Account available to the authorities and filed before the ITAT, it was submitted that its perusal would show that the assessee right from 12 t h May,2010 to 8 t h March,2011 has periodically been depositing money in the bank and withdrawing the same in different denominations. These total deposits amounting to Rs.24,79,000/- on 32 different dates, it was submitted, has been withdrawn in part by making withdrawals on 18 different dates to keep its business functioning. The payments to be made for purchase of cloth were withdrawn whenever the payment was to be made wherein the sale proceeds of sales made earlier had been deposited. It was his submission that it is not a case of outright lumpsum deposit of Rs.24,79,000/-. It is a periodic deposit made and as per record periodic withdrawals have been made. These facts would show that it is a genuine business activity. 6.7 On query, whether the assessee is functioning from a particular place in this stated activity of cloth trading, it ITA 405 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 9 of 21 was his submission that the assessee is currently engaged as a farm labourer. It was submitted, that at the relevant point of time, the assessee was carrying out his trading activity on a cart (phayri) from door to door or weekly market etc. It was his submission that this business activity in the unorganized sector was a regular seasonal business of the assessee for a few years at that point of time. It was elaborated that infact he deposited this money in the bank and withdrew through bank because he was informed that in order to take a housing loan which he was interested of availing, he was informe d that he needed to show some activity in the bank. Acting on this so called advice or information, this entire exercise has resulted. It was further submitted that had the assessee opened a CC Account and carried out his business activity therefrom the deposits and withdrawals would not have been questioned by the tax authorities. The whole situation has arisen as being an ill informed person, he proceeded to undertake this activity through his SB Account in order to justify that he had a financial presence for getting a housing loan. Now the said business in the unorganized sector has completely stopped by the assessee and he is engaged as a farm labourer. 6.8 It was his submission that all these facts in regard to the deposits in the bank account totaling only ITA 405 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 10 of 21 Rs.24,79,000/- were flagged by the AIR. The assessee was issued notice. The AO noticed that it was a case of non filer of return. Conscious of this fact, the AO has issued notices and looked into the facts and evidences of the assessee after calling for explanation. Only after being satisfied by the explanation and the evidence, only thereafter passed an order. It was submitted that no fact has been referred to by the PCIT to show what is the error committed by the AO in accepting the returned income. In the circumstances, it was his submission that the Revisionary Powers exercised by the ld. PCIT is bad in law. It was submitted that without even caring to address the facts available on record, the ld. DCIT straight away proceeded to rely on the legal position of law as applicable in the case of Rampyari Devi Sarogi Vs CIT 67 ITR 84 (S.C) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal 88 ITR 323 (S.C.) the exercise was misplaced as the facts were entirely distinguishable. Hence, it was his submission that the setting aside of a validly passed order was unwarranted on facts. 6.9 Referring to the impugned order, it was submitted that as per the Show Cause Notice, the following reasons have been set out by the ld. PCIT : "During the assessment proceedings, you have not filed any documentary/supporting evidence to prove the business of trading of cloth. It is further observed that declaring the income u/s 44AD of the Income Tax ITA 405 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 11 of 21 Act, 1961 in the ITR does not prove that you were running the business of trading in clothes unless documentary evidence is filed in this regard to prove the genuineness of business trade. As such, in the absence of any documentary evidence regarding business activities, cash deposit of Rs.24,79,000/-remained unexplained and was required to the taxed accordingly as per law." 6.10 The reasoning on facts as considered by him set out in para 3 was assailed. The same is reproduced for completeness : “3. I have carefully examined the entire facts of the case from the assessment record. Perusal of assessment record shows that the replies filed during the assessment proceedings were just placed on record and the A.O. has failed to make any independent enquiries to verify the contention of the assessee that he was doing the business of trading of clothes and the cash deposits were made out of trading of clothes business. No supporting evidence has been filed regarding the business activity, therefore, all the cash deposits of Rs.24,79,000/-should have been considered as unexplained cash deposits from undisclosed sources and the assessing officer was required to add all the cash deposits to the income of the assessee. In view of the facts discussed above it is clear that the assessment order to this extent is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The A.O. should conduct detailed enquiries on the above issues. The nature of business being conducted by the assessee should be examined on the basis of documentary evidences. The purchase and sales should also be examined since the assessee has claimed that the cash deposits were out of business receipts. In case no satisfactory explanation is found after inquiry the entire deposits should be added back to the income of the assessee.” 6.11 Addressing para 4 it was his submission that the reliance placed on the legal position as set out in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT 243 I TR 83 (S.C) it was submitted, was not disputed. Infact the assessee is also relying on it. In the facts of the present case, it was submitted, the order has been passed without considering the record available before the ld. PCIT and without pointing ITA 405 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 12 of 21 out any error or infirmity in the order passed. Accordingly, it was his prayer that the order may be quashed. 6.12 Various decisions were relied upon in support of the said prayer. These have been set out in para 2.1.3 of the written submissions filed and were relied upon to canvass that in the facts of the present case, complete enquiry on facts have been made, however, as per legal position, merely because the enquiry carried out by the AO is considered inadequate by the Commissioner, this fact by itself cannot make the order passed by the AO inadequate and amenable to Revisionary Powers. The PCIT, it was submitted, is required to point out the error in the enquiries made by the AO to meet the twin conditions as mandated by the Statute. 6.13 The decisions referred to in para 2.1.4 of the written submissions were also relied upon to canvass that when on facts the PCIT is aware of the extent of enquiries conducted by the AO, then in case the ld. PCIT’s opinion is at variance from the opinion arrived at by the AO, then this fact by itself also cannot grant the PCIT to direct a revision in the order as the twin conditions as mandated in the Statute are still to be met. On facts, it has been argued that these are not met. 6.14 Accordingly, it was his prayer that the impugned order may be quashed. Specific attention was invited to the ITA 405 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 13 of 21 decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax, LTU v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (2022) 138 taxmann.com 332. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Krishna Capbox (2015) (Allahabad) 60 Taxmann.com 243 for the proposition that once the issues have been enquired by the AO then these cannot again be looked into by order u/s 263 on the grounds that the AO had not made enquiry on certain aspects and has accepted the version of the assessee without making further enquiries or verification. It was submitted that it has been held to be not a valid exercise of power. Reliance was placed on the finding of the Tribunal that a mere non discussion or non- mention of the issues in the assessment order cannot lead to the assumption that the AO did not apply his mind. 6.15 Reliance was also placed upon the order of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Krypton Datamatics Ltd. V. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala, (65 taxmann.com 324)(Chandigarh -Trib.) and Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Bathinda v. Jiwan Kumar (2017) 82 taxmann.com 221 . Re liance was also placed upon Narain Singia v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central) Ludhiana (2015) 62 taxmann.com 255 and Pawan Kumar Vs. ITAT (2015) 62 taxmann.com 260 (Chandigarh). Relying upon the position of law and the facts on ITA 405 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 14 of 21 record, it was his submission that the impugned order may be quashed. 7. The ld. CI T-DR on the other hand relying upon the impugned order submitted that no facts or evidences have been taken into consideration by the AO to accept that the assessee was in the business of trading in cloth. It was his submission that the assessee has not filed any return u/s 139 and has merely claimed that his income is covered u/s 44AD. This fact has been accepted by the AO without enquiring into the issue. It was his submission that it is a mere story to cover up the deposits in the bank account of the assessee which is required to be looked into specifically since the assessee was a non filer of return. 8. The ld. AR objected to the argument that the assessee was required to file a return u/s 139. It was his submission that the assessee did not have taxable income. The fact that assessee was a non filer of return and had deposited in cash Rs.24,79,000/- in the bank account was a fact known to the AO. It has been flagged by AIR. The business activity of the assessee was explained to be carrying out this trading activity in cloth in the unorganized sector not from any shop or permanent premises but from a cart. It was a case where the assessee was not required to file any return as the assessee did not have taxable income. These facts were the ITA 405 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 15 of 21 very reason for the assessment order being passed u/s 147/143(3) after taking due approvals of the PCIT, Panchkula. The assessee, it was submitted, did file a return in response thereto and showed on the basis of documents and evidence on record that these were periodic deposits as a business activity. The withdrawals were made to pay for purchasing the cloth etc. and the activity from the bank would show that these were periodic deposits and withdrawals. It was reiterated that it is not a case of an outright lumpsum deposit. Considering the facts and evidences, the AO has passed an order. The return filed in response to notice u/s 148, it was submitted, is to be treated as a return filed u/s 139 and it is not even the case of the PCIT, thus, it was his prayer that the impugned order on facts may be quashed. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the facts of the present case, it is seen that no reply was given by the assessee to the Show Cause Notice of ld. PCIT. Perusal of the impugned order shows that Show Cause Notice was issued to the assessee on 08.12.2021 and again on 05.03.2021 and as a last opportunity on 09.03.2021 and on all these dates, the assessee did not respond which led to the passing of the order on 17.03.2021 holding as under : ITA 405 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 16 of 21 “6. Keeping in view of facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, it is concluded that the assessee has nothing to say in her defense and it is observed that the AO has passed the orderdated28.11.2018in undue haste and in a very casual manner without due diligence and without conducting any worthwhile enquiries. Therefore, it is very clear that assessment proceedings completed under section 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act are erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in terms of provisions of section 263 of the Act including Explanation 2 inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Accordingly, the assessment order passed by the AO on 28.11.2018under section 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act for the A.Y. 2011-12 is cancelled with the direction to pass an order afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made in the above paras and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 9.1 A perusal of the order shows that reliance has been placed upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. Vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (S.C), Ram Pyari Devi Sarogi V CIT 67 ITR 84 (S.C) and Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs CIT 88 ITR 323 (S.C) Before addressing the legal position, it is necessary to first address the facts available on record which were available to the ld. PCIT. It is seen that the reply of the assessee alongwith copy of the bank account of the assessee and explanation in regard to the deposits was available to the ld. PCIT. It has already been extracted in the earlier part of this order. On a perusal of the same, it is seen that every month, there is atleast one deposit and in some months, there are few deposits and few withdrawals. Thus, the argument of the assessee accepted by the AO that these were normal deposits and withdrawals for the stated business activity of the assessee gains strength. Hence, it is not a case where the ITA 405 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 17 of 21 assessee is seen to have made a lumpsum deposit. Such an action may have been open to the interpretation that there was no business activity in the unorganized sector. However, frequent deposits and withdrawals from the bank are available. Hence, in the absence of any evidence of any nefarious illegal activity referred to on record, the inference that the stated claim was incorrectly accepted, cannot be so concluded. It is seen that in the festive month of July, there are 5 deposits on 5 different dates and 2 withdrawals of Rs.2,87,000/- and Rs.85,000/- on two specific different dates. Similarly in the festive month of Sept and October, it is seen that there are 15 specific instances of deposit and withdrawal. These facts available on record support the claim that the assessee was engaged in some small scale business trading activity. As observed, we find that no contrary fact or evidence has been referred by the ld. PCIT to show that the claim was incorrectly accepted by the AO. The assessee is stated to be currently engaged as a farm labourer and is stated to have overtly engaged in the business to gain financial legitimacy. The efforts in the unorganized sector even if sporadic in order to gain a credible financial legitimacy should be encouraged and not allowed to be stunted by the administrative brunt. The enterprise and efforts of a farm labourer to have a footprint in financial sector by engaging in trade in cloth etc, from house to ITA 405 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 18 of 21 house/village mart on a cart should be given due consideration. There is a rising India which inhabits the unorganized sector having aspirations to rise on their own steam and courage. On a perusal of the facts on record and the impugned order we find that no fact or evidence has been referred to by the ld. PCIT to show that the assessee was engaged in any nefarious activity from which the amounts were deposited and withdrawn. There is no fact referred to show that the AO has committed an error in accepting the claim of the assessee. Accordingly in the facts as they stand we find no infirmity in the AO having accepted the claim of the assessee. 10. Before parting, we deem it appropriate to note that we have taken into consideration the decisions relied upon by the ld. PCIT. Specific mention may be made to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Sarogi Vs CIT 67 ITR 84 (S.C) on which the ld. PCIT has relied upon. In it is seen that in the facts of the said case, it is seen that the assessee was found to have manipulated her name and address so as to ensure that her case came up before a specific AO. The assessee's name starting with ‘R’ would have gone to a specific AO. Considering the facts, it was held that the AO before whom the return was filed was the AO who had jurisdiction over the alphabetical letter ‘S’ to ‘Z’. It was also noticed that she had also given incorrect ITA 405 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 19 of 21 address in order to ensure that her return was filed before the ITO, ‘D' Ward, Howrah. The Hon'ble Apex Court took notice of paragraph 9 of the de cision of the Hon'ble High Court wherein it had been held that it had been ascertained that the ITO, ‘D' Ward, Howrah had no jurisdiction over the assessee and hence, all the assessments made by him were he ld to be ab-initio null and void. In the facts of that case, it had also been ascertained from local enquiries that the assessee never resided nor carried on any business from 7, Haragenj Road, Salkia. The Hon'ble Court took note of the fact that, “.........with a view to camouflage the name and make it appear to fall within the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, the name has been given in the reverse order by putting the surname first and her own name afterwards, as will be apparent from the returns filed..........” Accordingly, on the basis of this fact, the alleged enquiries carried out by the AO who had no jurisdiction was held to be a valid exercise of powers u/s 33B which is synonymous to Section 263 of the Act. 10.1 Similarly in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs CIT 88 ITR 323 (S.C) the returned income of the assessee which included income from speculation and interest and investments etc. was found to have been filed voluntarily wherein there was no evidence for speculative transactions or the interest received. The said return de-hors supporting evidences was found to have been accepted by the AO who had no jurisdiction over ITA 405 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 20 of 21 the assessee. The assessments made by the AO were held to be made in haste without making any enquiry or investigation into the antecedents of the assessee. The AO who passed the order in the said case again similarly had “no jurisdiction over the assessee. The assessments made by them were ab-initio void in as much as the departmental enquiries revealed that the assessee never resided nor carried on any business..........” Accordingly, the decision rendered therein is also very fact specific as the assessee therein also was found to have manipulated the filing of return and consequently her assessment by ensuring that her case came up before a specific AO who admittedly had no jurisdiction over her. The said AO blindly accepted the returned income without making any enquiries. Thus, the said decision on facts is found to be incorrectly relied upon as it does not advance the case of the Revenue. 11. Accordingly, in the light of the facts and position of law as referred to hereinabove, the impugned order is quashed as Revisionary Powers cannot be permitted to be exercised on suspicions and inferences. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 26 th July,2022. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (DIVA SINGH) लेखा लेखालेखा लेखा सद瀡य सद瀡यसद瀡य सद瀡य/ Accountant Member 瀈याियक 瀈याियक瀈याियक 瀈याियक सद瀡य सद瀡यसद瀡य सद瀡य/ Judicial Member “Poonam” ITA 405 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 21 of 21 आदेश क琉 灹ितिलिप अ灡ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ牸/ The Appellant 2. 灹瀄यथ牸/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु猴/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु猴 (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय 灹ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च瀃डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड榁 फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar