Nadharsha Pulukuzhi Seethy, Ernakulam V. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi-1, Kochi

ITA 570/COCH/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Nadharsha Pulukuzhi Seethy against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi-1, which directed a re-assessment of the appellant's income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The revision was based on the grounds that the initial assessment did not adequately address the appellant's cash deposits totaling Rs. 8.5 lakhs in an Axis Bank account. The Tribunal examined whether the Assessing Officer had sufficiently investigated these transactions during the original assessment. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer had indeed considered these transactions, as they were above Rs. 1,00,000, and partially treated them as unexplained, thus reversing the PCIT's directions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115523 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 31-12-0000
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2022
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member ITA No.570/Coch/2022 (Assessment Year:2017-18) Nadharsha Pulukuzhi Seethy Pulukuzhi House, BMC P.O Thgrikkakara, Judge Mukku Ernakulam 682021 Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi-1 C.R. Building, IS Press Road Kochi 682018 PAN –ARZPP9171F Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, CA Respondent by: Shri M. Rajasekhar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 09.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 19.12.2022 O R D E R Per: S.S. Godara, J.M. This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2017-18,arises against the PCIT-1, Kochi’sorder dated 22.03.2022, involving proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing and from a perusal of the learned PCIT’s detailed discussion in his Section 263 revision proceedings that he has directed the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment afresh after holding the earlier one dated 20.12.2019 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue on the ground that the latter had filed to examine the issue of assessee’s cash deposits amounting to Rs.8.5 lakhs in Axis Bank A/c No. 915010010006818. ITA No. 570/Coch/2022 Nadharsha Pulukuzhi Seethy 2 3. Learned CIT-DR has drawn strong support from the PCIT’s revision direction under challenge. 4. We find that the Assessing Officer’s assessment herein in page 2 had examined all of the assessee’s credits/debits in the bank account above Rs.1,00,000/- during FY 2016-17 and partly treated the same as unexplained. That being the case, this could hardly be held as an assessment wherein the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind and not carried any enquiry or inadequate enquiry; as the case may be. Shri M. Rajasekhar vehemently argued that there is no detailed discussion in the assessment findings to this effect. We hold that there is no such precondition of a detailed discussion once the Assessing Officer examinesan issue as per CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). Learned PCIT’s revision directions in issue stand reversed therefore. 5. This assessee’s appealis allowed. Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 19 th December, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Cochin, Dated: 19 th December, 2022 Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT- 1, Kochi 4. The DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin n.p.