Janata Enterprises, Bhubaneswar V. PCIT-1, Bhubaneswar

ITA 83/CTK/2022

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Janata Enterprises against the order of the Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar-1, which was passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The original assessment for the assessment year 2017-18 was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, but was later revised by the Pr. CIT due to concerns regarding cash deposits made during the demonetization period and issues related to profitability. The tribunal focused on the lack of examination of the cash deposits by the Assessing Officer, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300293 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Janata Enterprises, Plot No.57, janapath, Ashok Nagar, Unit Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT passed u/s.263 of ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2021 18. 2. Shri Purnendu Bhusan Mohanty Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.83/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Janata Enterprises, Plot No.57, janapath, Ashok Nagar, Unit-II, Bhubaneswar. Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.AAAFJ 6599 H (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri Purnendu Bhusan Mohanty Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, Date of Hearing : 9/02 Date of Pronouncement : 9/02 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT passed u/s.263 of the Act dated 11.3.2022 ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2021-22/1040605977(1) for the assessment year Purnendu Bhusan Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. Page1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bhubaneswar. Respondent) Purnendu Bhusan Mohanty, AR M.K.Gautam, CIT DR 2/2023 2/2023 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld Pr. .3.2022 in Appeal No. for the assessment year 2017- , ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. ITA No.83/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page2 | 4 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the original assessment in the case of the assessee came to be completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2019. It was the submission that the order u/s.143(3) of the Act was the subject matter of revision u/s.263 by the Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar-1 on two grounds, first being in respect of demonetization period from 9.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 and the second issue was in respect of profitability. It was the submission that the issue of profitability had been dropped by the Pr. CIT after considering the reply of the assessee. It was the submission that in respect of issue of cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period, the assessee had deposited about Rs.34,08,480/- during the demonetization period. It was the submission that the assessee is unable to give the details of the SBN currency, which had been deposited in the bank account during the relevant period. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue and had not drawn any adverse inference. The issue having been considered by the Assessing Officer, the order u/s.263 of the Act was not permissible. It was the submission that the order u/s.263 passed by the Pr. CIT is liable to be cancelled. 4. In reply, ld CIT DR vehemently supported the order of the Pr. CIT. It was the submission that the issue has not been considered by the Assessing Officer insofar as there is no discussion on the issue in the assessment order nor has there been any discussion on the issue in the notice issued ITA No.83/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page3 | 4 u/s.142(1) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that cash book has not been examined by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the order u/s.263 is liable to be upheld. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order does not mention that the books of account have been produced before the Assessing Officer. All that the assessment order says is that some documents relating to books have been produced. A perusal of the reply to the notice u/s.142(1) which have been responded to in the electronic mode also does not say that the cash book have been produced before the Assessing Officer. In fact, there is no iota of evidence to suggest the cash deposited during the demonetization period has been examined. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has formed an opinion on the issue. This being so, we are of the view that the Pr. CIT is well within his powers to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Consequently, the order passed u/s. 263 is upheld. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 09/02/2023. Sd/- sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 09/02/2023 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) ITA No.83/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page4 | 4 Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The appellant: Janata Enterprises, Plot No.57, janapath, Ashok Nagar, Unit-II, Bhubaneswar. 2. The Respondent:Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-, 1, Bhubaneswar 4. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 5. Guard file. //True Copy//