Shri Mohan Chandra Das, Jangipur, Murshidabad V. P.C.I.T. - 14, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 766/KOL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Mohan Chandra Das, who appealed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-14, Kolkata, which was passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The revisionary order was based on the grounds that the original assessment did not adequately address the source and nature of substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts, which were significantly higher than the reported turnover. The Tribunal examined whether the Assessing Officer had conducted a sufficient inquiry into these deposits during the original assessment. After reviewing the submissions and evidence, including the detailed explanations provided by the assessee regarding the nature of the cash deposits and the transactions involved, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer had indeed conducted a thorough inquiry and taken a plausible view, thus the revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 was improperly invoked.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 132515 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 25-12-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT, Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT, CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., M/s. Bharat I.T.A. No. 201, 202 and 203/Ahd/2020, M/s. Shree Bishnu Rice Mill vs. ACIT, ITA No. 1684/Kol/2019
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUDIPTA GUHA
• Keywords: Revision of order; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Assessment record; Set aside
• Section: 68; 37; 263; 2; 143(3); 142(1); 133(6); 143(2)

Judgement Text

| आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 766/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Mohan Chandra Das Village – Tanti Para P.O. – Aurangabad Sub-Div. Jangipur Dist.- Murshidabad Pin – 742201 [PAN : AAFCR7565P] Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-14, Kolkata अपीलाथȸ/ (Appellant) Ĥ× यथȸ/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Mita Rizvi, A/R Revenue by : Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT D/R स ु नवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 14/02/2023 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pr-onouncement: 18/04/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -14, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. Pr. CIT”], passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), dated 21/02/2019 for the Assessment Year 2014-15, on the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Pr. C.I.T., erred in law in assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act in order to impose his own views on the Ld. A.O. when the Ld. A.O. after examining the cash deposits in savings bank account with the books of accounts produced by the assessee during the course of assessment proceeding and further, after being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee in connection to the alleged cash deposit which was the sole reason for selection of the case under limited scrutiny, had taken a plausible and judicious view, which did not suffer from lack of independent and adequate enquiry. I.T.A. No. 766/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Mohan Chandra Das 2 2. That, the Ld. Pr. C.I.T erred in holding the assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for alleged non- compliance of clause (a) of Explanation 2 to sec. 263(1) of the Act in spite of the fact that the impugned assessment was not a case of no enquiry and after thorough examination of the bank accounts suing notice u/s.133(6) of the Act together with detailed examination of the cash deposits in savings bank account with the books of accounts of the assessee, the Ld. A.O. took a judicious view in the matter and allowed the cash deposits made in the saving bank account during the relevant financial year. 3. That, the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. has acted against the Explanation 2 to sec.263 of the Act, inasmuch as the assessment order was passed after making proper enquiries/verification which the A.O. was required to make with respect to the cash deposits made in the saving bank account during the relevant financial year and hence the order passed u/s.263 of the Act is liable to be quashed. 4. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Pr C.I.T. erred in law in assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act and setting aside the assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act for fresh assessment, totally ignoring the explanation of the assessee that apart from his regular source of income, the assessee was engaged in other business activities like buying and selling of agricultural products investing in mango garden and selling ripe mangoes, selling grocery items after buying them in bulk quantities as per orders obtained from local business men, doing pisciculture jobs and others. 5. That, the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee trying various business option when became aware of the information that a group of people is organizing to buy a big land from Ramel Grop of Industries [village - Mathurapur, P.O. Raghunathganj in the district of Murshidabad], acted as a mediator in selling the same to interested customers in different sizes of small plots for earning commission income, which fact was explained before the A.O. in course of the assessment proceeding. 6. That, the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. further erred in totally ignoring the explanation of the assessee that in course of the assessment proceeding it was explained before the AO that it is in this connection that money was collected in cash by the assessee from different prospective investors and was deposited in his personal savings bank account and was further withdrawn from time to time for paying to the organizers and later on, due to cancellation of the deal on imposition of ban by the Government from selling any property of Ramel Group of Industries, the money so received from the investors were ultimately returned back in cash. 7. That, the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/ or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” I.T.A. No. 766/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Mohan Chandra Das 3 2. The Registry has pointed out that the appeal is time barred by 1326 days. In order to explain the delay, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that, the income-tax matters of the assessee were being looked after by the tax consultant, Sri S.K.Paul. The original assessment order for the subject assessment year was passed by the ITO, Ward -42(1), Murshidabad on 16/11/2016 and subsequently proceeding u/s.263 of the Act was initiated and show cause notice dated 21/08/2018 was issued in this connection. Order u/s.263 of the Act was passed by the Ld. Principal C.I.T-14, Kolkata on 21/02/2019 against which neither the appellant was guided nor was any action taken by the tax consultant. Thereafter, the re-assessment order u/s.143(3)/263 of the Act was passed by the ITO, Ward -42(1), Murshidabad on 27/12/2019 against which the tax consultant filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC. Subsequently, on 28/11/2022, it was learnt from the tax consultant that the appeal was dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC vide order dated 10/11/2022. The appellant took advice from the present Counsel, Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, who advised filing of appeal against the order u/s.263 of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was filed before the ITAT. All these events caused this delay of 1326 days and there was no mala fide intention behind not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Therefore, this appeal is being presented with an explanation for condonation of delay. He prayed that delay be condoned and appeal be decided on merit. 3. On the other hand, the ld. D/R contended that the assessee has not filed any complaint against the tax consultant. The explanation given by the assessee is not sufficient to condone the huge delay. 4. We have duly considered the rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. I.T.A. No. 766/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Mohan Chandra Das 4 6. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression “sufficient cause” employed in this Section has also been used identically in sub-Section 3 of Section 249 of the Act, which provides power to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and consideration of this expression has fallen for consideration before the Hon’ble High Courts as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court then, the Hon’ble Courts were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression has to be construed liberally. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, 1987 AIR 1353: "1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." I.T.A. No. 766/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Mohan Chandra Das 5 7. Similarly, we would like to make reference to authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra). It reads as under: "Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a ITA No.201, 202 and 203/Ahd/2020 salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." 8. We do not deem it necessary to re-cite or recapitulate the proposition laid down in other decisions. It is suffice to say that the Hon'ble Courts are unanimous in their approach to propound that whenever the reasons assigned by an applicant for explaining the delay, then such reasons are to be construed with a justice oriented approach. I.T.A. No. 766/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Mohan Chandra Das 6 9. In light of the above, if we examine the explanation of the assessee then, it would reveal that basically the delay has occurred on account of lacunae by the erstwhile tax consultant of the assessee Shri S.K. Paul and the assessee did not have any malafide intention to cause the delay. Therefore, cumulative setting of all these factors would suggest that there is no deliberate delay at the end of the assessee because the assessee was not going to gain anything from delaying this appeal. It is also pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra) has observed that period of delay does not matter. It is the quality of the explanation. If some valid reason is there, then any period can be condoned. In this case delay was caused due to fault of the erstwhile tax consultant of the assessee. Taking into consideration all these factors, we condone the delay and admit this appeal. 10. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the wholesale trading business of seasonal goods and country produce. Income of Rs.1,98,350/- was declared in the return manually filed on 31/03/2015. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS for the reason that cash deposit in savings bank accounts is more than the turnover. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were duly served upon the assessee. Various details as called for by the ld. Assessing Officer were filed by the assessee including purchase, sale, cash deposits in savings bank account and were found to be in order. Ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment after making addition of undisclosed income of Rs.1,27,474/- and assessed income of assessee at Rs.3,25,824/-. 11. Subsequently, ld. Pr. CIT called for the assessment records and observed that there was no explanation as to the nature and source of the cash deposit and as to whether the same is explained for income tax I.T.A. No. 766/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Mohan Chandra Das 7 purposes. Further, ld. Pr. CIT observed that ld. Assessing Officer framed the assessment without making enquiries and verifications which should have been made in the facts and circumstances of the case. He accordingly, issued the following show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act:- “On examination of the assessment records for the A.Y.2014-15, it is seen that the reason for the selection of the case under "Limited Scrutiny" was "cash deposits in savings bank account (s) is more than the turnover". On perusal of the documents on record, it is seen that the deposit of cash in the bank account is Rs. 1,35,01,000/- maintained with ICICI Bank and another deposit in cash in the bank account with State Bank of India of Rs.2,00,000/-. As against this, the assessee has disclosed sales of only Rs.11,71,920/- in his books of accounts and the return-filed. The A.O. has stated in the assessment order that the cash deposits in the savings bank account have duly been examined with the books of accounts produced by the assessee. However, there is no explanation as to the nature and source of the deposits and as to whether the same is explained for income tax purposes. It is clear from the documents available on record that the order has been passed by the Assessing Officer without making enquiries and verifications which should have been made in the facts and circumstances of the case. The case was selected for limited scrutiny precisely for the reason of verification of the cash deposits vis-à-vis the turnover/sales disclosed by the assessee. The A.O. has not made any enquiry to arrive at the conclusion as to what was the nature of the cash and the source thereof and as to why it did not form part of the turnover/ sales/receipts of the assessee. Perusal of the bank statements of ICICI Bank reveals that amounts running into several lakhs were being deposited in cash on various dates and amounts running into several lakhs were being withdrawn from the bank account in cash on various dates. In the absence of any explanation relating to the nature and source of cash deposits and purpose of withdrawals, even if the amounts were recorded in the books of accounts the same should have warranted addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961 since these are not disclosed as receipts or turnover or even as any loans or advanced received. The amount of Rs.1,37,01,000/- should have been prima facie, brought to tax u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961. The A.O. has made no enquiries and verifications in this regard and has passed the order.” 11.1. In response to the showcause notice dt. 21/08/2013, the assessee filed various details and the purpose of cash deposits in bank was to by a big land from Ramel Group of Industries on behalf of group of persons who I.T.A. No. 766/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Mohan Chandra Das 8 gave cash to assessee but thereafter the deal was cancelled due to imposition of ban by the Government of selling any property of Ramel Group of Industries and finally the cash was returned back in cash. It was also submitted that all these details were placed before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, proper enquiry has been conducted. However, ld. Pr. CIT was not satisfied and he came to a conclusion that there is nothing on record which suggest even remotely that the source of cash deposit have been examined by the Assessing Officer. He also observed that assessee gave explanation of the cash deposit of Rs.1,29,62,000/- in the ICICI Bank account whereas the cash found to be deposited in the said bank account is approximately Rs.1.35 Crores. He thereafter referred to various judicial pronouncements and held that the assessment order dt. 16/11/2016, was erroneous insofar it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directed the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment on the issues discussed in the impugned order after considering the facts of the case and after carrying out necessary enquiries and verifications and after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee, in accordance with law. 12. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 13. The ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assesse has explained the source of cash deposited aggregating to Rs. 1,36,01,000/-. He also made reference to the chart having details of cash deposits and withdrawals for the Financial Year 2012-13 & 2013-14. He also stated that opening cash in hand as on 01/04/2014 stood at Rs.47,69,898.67/- and the remaining amount of cash received during the year which was on account of the deal of purchase of land being cancelled due to a ban on sale of properties of Ramela Group of Industries. Reliance placed on the decision of M/s. Bharat I.T.A. No. 766/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Mohan Chandra Das 9 Tirtha Rice Mill vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2022] 220 TTJ (Kol) 1057, M/s. Shree Bishnu Rice Mill vs. ACIT, ITA No. 1684/Kol/2019 and CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in [2011] 332 ITR 0167 (Del.). 13.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the detailed finding of the ld. Pr. CIT. 14. We have heard rival contentions and perused the materials placed on record before us. 15. Before us, assessee has challenged the assumption of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, by the ld. Pr. CIT and has further raised a ground that ld. Pr. CIT has erred in holding the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Ignoring the fact that, notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued for getting the necessary information and detailed examination of the cash deposit in the savings bank account. 16. We find that the provision of Section 263 of the Act has direct bearing on the issue raised before us, therefore, it is pertinent to take note of this section which reads as under: "263(1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. Explanation- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,- (a) an order passed on or before or after the 1 st day of June, 1988 by the Assessing Officer shall include- I.T.A. No. 766/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Mohan Chandra Das 10 (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Chief Commissioner or Director General or Commissioner authorized by the Board in this behalf under section 120; (b) record shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matter of any appeal filed on or before or after the 1 st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), an order in revision under this section may be passed at any time in the case of an order which has been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation- In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub- section (2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded." 16.1. On a bare perusal of the sub section-1 would reveal that powers of revision granted by section 263 to the learned Commissioner have four compartments. In the first place, the learned Commissioner may call for and examine the records of any proceedings under this Act. For calling of the record and examination, the learned Commissioner was not required to show any reason. It is a part of his administrative control to call for the records and examine them. The second feature would come when he will judge an order passed by an Assessing Officer on culmination of any proceedings or during the pendency of I.T.A. No. 766/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Mohan Chandra Das 11 those proceedings. On an analysis of the record and of the order passed by the Assessing Officer, he formed an opinion that such an order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. By this stage the learned Commissioner was not required the assistance of the assessee. Thereafter the third stage would come. The learned Commissioner would issue a show cause notice pointing out the reasons for the formation of his belief that action u/s 263 is required on a particular order of the Assessing Officer. At this stage the opportunity to the assessee would be given. The learned Commissioner has to conduct an inquiry as he may deem fit. After hearing the assessee, he will pass the order. This is the 4 th compartment of this section. The learned Commissioner may annul the order of the Assessing Officer. He may enhance the assessed income by modifying the order. He may set aside the order and direct the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order. At this stage, before considering the multi-fold contentions of the ld. Representatives, we deem it pertinent to take note of the fundamental tests propounded in various judgments relevant for judging the action of the CIT taken u/s 263. 16.2. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) has laid down following ratio with regard to provisions of section 263 of the Act: “There can be no doubt that the provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer; it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders I.T.A. No. 766/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Mohan Chandra Das 12 passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when an ITO adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. It has been held by this Court that where a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). [Emphasis Supplied]” 17. Examining the fact of the case in light of the above stated judicial pronouncements, we notice that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for the reason that cash deposited in savings bank account was more than the turnover. It shows that purpose of scrutiny was to examine the purpose of cash deposit in the assessee’s bank account. Further from the body of the assessment order itself it is revealed that ld. Assessing Officer has called for the information regarding the source of alleged cash deposit in the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. Thereafter ld. Assessing Officer has stated that the amounts have been duly verified with relevant supporting documents on test check basis. Further the ld. Assessing Officer also stated that purchase, sale and cash deposit in the savings bank account have duly examined with the books of account produced by the Authorised Representative of the assessee. Further bank accounts were also examined by issuing notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. Even during the course of impugned proceedings detailed submissions were filed by the assessee regarding the cash collected from investors, depositing them in ICICI Bank account and then payments made to project organisers and thereafter the cash I.T.A. No. 766/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Mohan Chandra Das 13 withdrawal from ICICI Bank account and refunded to the investors. It was stated that the reason for this huge cash deposit and withdrawal was basically for the purpose of purchasing land from Ramel Group of Industries by group of persons but since at a subsequent stage, a ban was imposed by the Government on sale of properties of Ramel Group of Industries, the deal did not materialise. The submissions filed by the assessee before the ld. Pr. CIT in para 3 & 4 of the impugned order, reproduced for ready reference:- I.T.A. No. 766/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Mohan Chandra Das 14 I.T.A. No. 766/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Mohan Chandra Das 15 18. From the above details and the submissions filed by the assessee which pertains to the deal of purchase of land from Ramel Group of Industries which could not materialize, it is established that the alleged cash deposit and withdrawal are not related to the business turnover of the assessee and the same is a separate transaction. Since the assesse was able to satisfy the Assessing Officer that alleged cash withdrawal are not part of the regular business carried out by the assessee of trading in goods, he accepted the contention by way of proper application of mind and took plausible view provided under the statute and did not make any addition for cash deposits. It has been consistently held that where on a particular issue, the ld. Assessing Officer has conducted a detailed enquiry, called for the relevant information to which necessary compliance has been made by the assessee and ld. Assessing Officer took a plausible view which may or may not be beneficial to the revenue but the assessment order is not erroneous, then under such circumstances, the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, cannot be invoked. 19. Similar issue came up for adjudication before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shree Bishnu Rice Mill vs. ACIT (supra), wherein this Tribunal held as follows:- “14. We note that in the order passed u/s 263 of the Act, it has been alleged that the issue of difference in purchases was not carefully examined by the Assessing Officer before allowing assessee's claim for purchases in the Purchase Ledger Account and that no query was raised by the AO in this regard which makes the order of AO erroneous. In this context, the Ld. AR submitted that during assessment, the AO noted the said difference and asked the Ld. AR of the assessee to explain the discrepancy. Accordingly, the Ld. AR of the assessee explained and reconciled the difference of Rs.12, 14,512/- in the purchases A/c. It was explained before the AO that inadvertently a few expenses had been debited to the Purchases Ledger A/c. We note that these expenses are otherwise allowable u/s 37 of the Act. It was brought to our notice that the AO examined the aforesaid facts with reference to the Purchases Ledger and found no infirmity in the explanations made by the assessee and as such, no addition was made in the assessment order. 15. It has to be kept in mind that where the assessing officer during the scrutiny assessment proceeding raised a query oral/written, which was answered by the assessee to the satisfaction of the AO and the same was not recorded/reflected in the assessment I.T.A. No. 766/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Mohan Chandra Das 16 order by the AO, itself cannot be a basis for drawing an adverse conclusion by the Principal Commissioner that no enquiry with respect to the issue was made by the AO to enable him to assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. If the AO allows the claim, on being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, on an enquiry made during the course of Assessment Proceedings as aforestated, the decision of AO cannot be held to be erroneous, on the ground that there is no discussion in that regard in the assessment order. The AO while scrutinizing the books of the assessee will come across numerous facts which he may raise query and once the assessee or the AR explains to the satisfaction of AO, it is upto the AO to mention about the same in the assessment order or not. Simply because the AO did not discuss the query which he raised during assessment proceedings and did not incorporates the assessee's explanation or his satisfaction, does not give scope to the Ld. Pr. CIT to invoke sec. 263 jurisdiction on lack of enquiry on the part of AO. We note that the fault no. 2 was spelled out by the Ld. Pr. CIT in the SCN dated 18.02.2019 (supra) and the assessee had replied in details which reply is found placed at pages 11 - 21 of the paper book. To this specific fault no. 2, the assessee's reply is found at page 18 of the paper book wherein assessee pointed out at para 22, that difference in purchase of paddy figure between statement and P&L Account was due to inadvertent error of booking other allowable expenses into the purchases. When the assessee explained this fact to the AO, the AO accepted the same and did not draw any adverse inference against the assessee, however, the AO did not mention the same while framing the assessment order, which cannot be treated as a case of failure to enquire by AO. Be that as it may be, when the assessee replied to the SCN issued by the Ld. Pr. CIT about lack of enquiry by AO on this discrepancy to the tune of Rs.12,14,512/- and when the assessee asserted that it was queried by the AO and the assessee had explained to the AO and reconciled the inadvertent error, the Ld. Pr. CIT ought to have called the AO to ascertain whether the assessee's explanation is correct or not i.e. the fact of enquiry by AO and assessee's explanation. In any way the assessee has explained the difference of Rs.12,14,512/- to Ld. Pr. CIT and contended that certain allowable expenses has been inadvertently booked in the purchase, this fact as shown in the chart (supra) was before the ld. Pr. CIT, which goes on to show that certain allowable expenses have been inadvertently booked into the purchases which fact has not been found to be wrong or erroneous, so the second limb that the prejudicial to the interest of revenue is not satisfied. So, the twin conditions are not satisfied for invoking sec. 263 jurisdiction. In this regard we may gainfully refer to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ashish Rajpal (2010) 320 ITR 0674 (Delhi), it was held that, "The fact that a query was raised during the course of scrutiny which was satisfactorily answered by the assessee but did not get reflected in the assessment order, would not by itself lead to a conclusion that there was no enquiry with respect to transactions carried out by the assessee giving the CIT jurisdiction to invoke s. 263, more so when the Tribunal had found that there had been an enquiry which had not been conducted with 'undue haste'". Therefore, in the facts and circumstances discussed supra, we are of the considerate opinion that the assessment order framed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore, the Ld. Pr. CIT's impugned action of interfering with the order of AO invoking the revisional jurisdiction under I.T.A. No. 766/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Mohan Chandra Das 17 section 263 of the Act is without jurisdiction and, therefore, null in the eyes of law and so it is quashed.” 19. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (supra), under identical circumstances held as under:- “The Assessing Officer in the assessment order is not required to give detailed reasons in respect of each and every item of deduction, etc. Therefore, one has to see from the record as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. One has to keep in mind the distinction between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry'. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not, by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of 'lack of inquiry' that such a course of action would be open. An order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately. This section does not visualise a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decision is held to be erroneous. Cases may be visualised where the Income-tax Officer while making an assessment examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and determines the income either by accepting the accounts or by making some estimate himself. The Commissioner, on perusal of the records, may be of the opinion that the estimate made by the officer concerned was on the lower side and left to the Commissioner he would have estimated the income at a figure higher than the one determined by the Income-tax Officer. That would not vest the Commissioner with power to re-examine the accounts and determine the income himself at a higher figure. It is because the Income-tax Officer has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in him in accordance with law and arrived at conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. . . . There must be some prima facie material on record to show that tax which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation a lesser tax than what was just has been imposed.” 20. Respectfully following the above decisions and considering the fact that issue referred in the showcause notice u/s 263 of the Act, in respect of source I.T.A. No. 766/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Mohan Chandra Das 18 of cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee held with ICICI Bank, assessee having successfully explained the said transaction before the ld. Assessing Officer after passing through detailed enquiry and again before ld. Pr. CIT, the submissions were made giving proper details in which the ld. Pr. CIT failed to find any specific error as no such defect has been recorded in the impugned order. Therefore, since detailed enquiry has been conducted by the ld. Assessing Officer on the issue raised in the showcause notice and a plausible view has been taken, we are of the considered view that ld. Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The order passed u/s 263 deserves to be quashed. We accordingly, quash the revisionary order passed by the ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act and restore the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dt. 16/11/2016 21. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 18 th April, 2023 at Kolkata. Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY GARG) (DR. MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated 18/04/2023 *SC SrPs I.T.A. No. 766/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Mohan Chandra Das 19 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent 3. संबंͬधत आयकर आय ु Èत / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आय ु Èत)अपील (/ The CIT(A)- 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता/DR,ITAT, Kolkata, 6. गाड[ फाई/ Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण ITAT, Kolkata