Kailesh Kumar Dewangan, Janjgir Champa V. Principal Commissioner of Income tax, Bilaspur

ITA 83/RPR/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8118 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MISHRA
• Keywords: Business income; Revision of order; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record
• Section: 44AD; 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 69A; 13; 147; 148; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 83/RPR/2020 (AY 2010-11) (H EARING IN VIRTUAL COURT) KAILASH KUMAR DEWANGAN, AT BIRRA, CHAMPA, JANJGIR CHAMPA, CHATTISGARH 4985823. PAN: ASEPD 6680 M VS THE PR.CIT, BILASPUR. ASSESSEE / APPELLANT REVENUE /RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL - CA REVENUE BY SHRI P.K. MISHRA CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING 13 .0 8 .2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02 .0 9 .2021 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : 1. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BILASPUR DATED 31.03.2020 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD PCIT HAS ERRED IN GIVING DIRECTION U/S 263 TO THE LD AO FOR MAKING FRESH ASSESSMENT BY SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED/S147 RWS. 143(3) DT.15-11-17, WHILE IT IS NOT SO ERRONEOUS & PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE WHICH IS A SINE QUA & PRECONDITION, PRE- REQUISITE FOR MAKING DIRECTION U/S263, AND IN ABSENCE OF THIS, THE ITA NO.83/RPR/2020 KAILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN, (A.Y.2010-11) 2 IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S263 IS INVALID, VOID-AB-INITIO AND THUS, LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.45.35 LAKHS IN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH AXIS BANK ON VARIOUS DATES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-11. THE LD. CIT(A) .ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ASKED THE EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE VIDE NOTICE DATED 21.02.2017. NO RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED BY THE AO FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE AO AFTER TAKING NECESSARY APPROVAL FROM RANGE HEAD (JCIT) ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ON 29.03.2017. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN ON 28.08.2017 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.4.49 LAKHS. THE AO AFTER SERVING STATUTORY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT PROCEEDED FOR ASSESSMENT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE IS ENGAGED IN WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADING OF CLOTH AND GARMENTS. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO EXECUTED ORDER FOR SUPPLY OF GARMENTS WORTH OF RS.38.68 LAKHS OF WHICH PROFIT WAS DECLARED AT 8% BEING RS.3.09 LAKHS UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT. BESIDES THAT THE ASSESSE ITA NO.83/RPR/2020 KAILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN, (A.Y.2010-11) 3 HAS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY WAY OF COMMISSION RECEIVED FROM FASHION SHOOTINGS AND INTEREST FORM SAHARA INDIA. TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS COMMISSION AND INTEREST INCOME, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED FORM-26AS. THE AO ALSO CALLED THE DETAILS OF BANK DEPOSIT. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT BEING BUSINESS RECEIPT AND DUE TO HIGHER INTEREST CHARGES IN CURRENT BANK ACCOUNT, HE DEPOSITED THE CASH IN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE DENIED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN BUSINESS RECEIPT OF RS.38.68 LAKHS WHEREAS DEPOSIT IN THE AXIS BANK ACCOUNT IS OF RS.45.37 LAKHS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCLOSE ACCURATE QUANTUM OF BUSINESS AND PROFIT THEREON. ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID OBSERVATION THE A.O ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.6.69 LAKHS SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.6.69 LAKHS IS HIS OWN CAPITAL ACCOUNT, WHICH IS FOR MAINTAINING THE CAPITAL WORKING REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS. THE AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTARY PROOF, THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.6.69 LAKHS IS TREATED AS BUSINESS RECEIPT. ITA NO.83/RPR/2020 KAILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN, (A.Y.2010-11) 4 THE AO WORKED OUT 8% INCOME OF BUSINESS RECEIPT OF RS.6.69 LAKHS THEREBY MADE ADDITION OF RS.53,562/-. THE AO ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.24,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15.11.2017 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 147. 3. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS REVISED BY THE LD. PR.CIT VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2020. BEFORE REVISING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD. PR.CIT ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 27.02.2020. IN THE NOTICE, THE LD. PR.CIT MENTIONED THAT HE HAS EXAMINED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND OBSERVED THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT MAKING PROPER ENQUIRIES AND VERIFICATION. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT, ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE IS DOING TRADING OF WHOLESALE BUSINESS OF CLOTH AND GARMENTS PRODUCTS. THE ASSESSEE MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.45.37 LAKHS IN AXIS BANK ACCOUNT WHICH INCLUDES RS.38.68 LAKHS OF BUSINESS RECEIPT AND BALANCE OF RS.6.69 LAKHS ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT TO MAINTAIN THE WORKING CAPITAL. THE LD. PR.CIT ITA NO.83/RPR/2020 KAILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN, (A.Y.2010-11) 5 FURTHER MENTIONED THAT THE TOTAL DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT IS RS.45.41 LAKHS WHILE THE LD.AO CONSIDER ONLY 45.37 LAKHS, THUS, THE LD.AO CONSIDERED LESSER RECEIPT OF RS.4,035/-. THUS, THE AO NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED AND VERIFIED THE FACTS. ON BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.6.69 LAKHS, IT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL AMOUNT FOR MAINTAINING WORKING REQUIREMENT, THE AO TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT AS BUSINESS RECEIPT AND WORKED OUT THE PROFIT @8%. IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THE AMOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. ON THE BUSINESS RECEIPT/DEPOSIT OUT OF GOODS SOLD, THE LD. PR.CIT HELD THAT LD.AO HAS NOT VERIFIED THE CLAIM OF BUSINESS WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THE LD. PR.CIT HELD THAT ON THE AFORESAID ABOVE LAPSES ON THE PART OF LD.AO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 4. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263. IN THE REPLY, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE MADE DEPOSIT OF RS.45,37,605/- IN AXIS BANK ACCOUNT AND NOT RS.45,41,648/-. THE DIFFERENCE OF AMOUNT OF ITA NO.83/RPR/2020 KAILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN, (A.Y.2010-11) 6 RS.4,035/- IS ON ACCOUNT OF THAT RS.3,981/- IS DIRECT CREDIT TO BANK ACCOUNT FROM SALES RECEIPT AND RS.51/- IS FOR SAVINGS BANK INTEREST [3984 + 51 = 4035]. ON THE ISSUE OF CAPITAL OF RS.6,69,521/-, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE IS DOING BUSINESS FROM YEARS TOGETHER AND CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.6,69,521/- WAS A JUSTIFIABLE AMOUNT WITH REGARD TO HIS BUSINESS STANDARD. THE AO TREATED THE SAME AS BUSINESS RECEIPT AND ADDED PROFIT OF RS.53,562/- UNDER SECTION 44AD, WHICH THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED. THE CONSIDERING THE SAID AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT IS UNDUE HARDSHIP WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. ON THE ISSUE OF SALES AMOUNT OF RS.38,68,084/-, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED HIS INCOME UNDER SECTION 44AD AND IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FURNISHED PURCHASE DETAILS, CONFIRMATION WHICH PROVE THE NATURE OF BUSINESS. ON THE ISSUE OF COMMISSION INCOME OF RS.84,890/-, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT COMMISSION ACCRUED FROM SALE OF RS.38,68,084/-. NO OTHER SALES WERE MADE BY ASSESSEE RELATING TO THE COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED COMMISSION ITA NO.83/RPR/2020 KAILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN, (A.Y.2010-11) 7 FROM FASHION SHOOTING AND PURCHASES MADE BY ASSESSEE IS ALSO FROM FASHION SHOOTING. THE ASSESSE PRAYED FOR DROPPING THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS. 5. THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY LD. PR.CIT. THE LD. PR.CIT ON ALL FOUR ISSUES REITERATED HIS OBSERVATION AS MENTIONED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. THE LD. PR.CIT FURTHER HELD THAT THE AO CONDUCTED INADEQUATE ENQUIRIES AND INVOKED THE EXPLANATION 2 OF SECTION 263. THE LD. PR.CIT CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND SET-ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE LD.AO TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AFRESH PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.PR.CIT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSE AND THE LEARNED CIT-DR FOR THE REVENUE. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED BRIEF WRITTEN SYNOPSIS. THE LD.AR SUBMITS THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF ITA NO.83/RPR/2020 KAILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN, (A.Y.2010-11) 8 INCOME ON 28.08.2017 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.4.49 LAKHS WHICH COMPRISE RS.3,09,474/- AS BUSINESS INCOME UNDER SECTION 44AD OF GROSS BUSINESS RECEIPT OF GOODS SOLD AT RS.38,68,084/- AND RS.84,890/- AS COMMISSION INCOME FROM FASHION SHOOTING AND RS.55,420/- AS INTEREST RECEIVED FROM SAHARA INDIA. THE COMMISSION INCOME AND INTEREST INCOME ARE SUPPORTED BY FOR 26AS FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. DURING THE ASSESSMENT, THE LD.AO RAISED SUFFICIENT QUERIES. THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFIED THE ALLEGED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.45,35,000/- BY FURNISHING COMPLETE DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.45,37,604/- IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF WHICH RS.38,68,084/- HAS BEEN MADE FROM CASH SALES OF GOODS TRADED BY ASSESSEE AND REMAINING BALANCE OF RS.6,69,521/- MADE FROM OUT OF CAPITAL ACCUMULATED SINCE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. THE AO AFTER VERIFYING AND EXAMINATION OF FACTS, ACCEPTED THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO DEPOSIT OF RS.38,68,084/- ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME OF RS.3,09,474/-. THE REMAINING CASH OF RS.6,69,521/- WAS TREATED AS BUSINESS RECEIPT AND THE AO MADE PRESUMPTIVE ITA NO.83/RPR/2020 KAILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN, (A.Y.2010-11) 9 ADDITION @8% AND THEREBY MADE ADDITION OF RS.53,562/-. THE AO ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.24,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL. THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT, HAS BEEN DULY ACCEPTED AND NO FURTHER APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE. 7. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE AO MADE DETAILED DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE ISSUE OF CASH DEPOSIT, COMMISSION INCOME AS WELL AS ON INTEREST INCOME BEFORE MAKING ADDITION OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL. THE AO PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER APPLICATION OF MIND MAKING ADEQUATE ENQUIRY AND TOOK REASONABLE AND PLAUSIBLE VIEW, WHICH IS TENABLE AS PER LAW ON CORRECT APPRECIATION OF FACTS. THE AO MADE ADEQUATE ENQUIRY AND IT IS NOT A CASE OF NO ENQUIRY. THE LD.AR SUBMITS THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING AS TO HOW THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S 143(3) OF THE ACT IS ERRONEOUS. THE LD. PR.CIT HIMSELF RECORDED.AO CONDUCTED INADEQUATE ENQUIRY, THUS, ADMITTED IT IS NOT A CASE OF NO ENQUIRY OR LACK OF ENQUIRY. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THERE IS A DISTINCTION ITA NO.83/RPR/2020 KAILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN, (A.Y.2010-11) 10 BETWEEN LACK OF ENQUIRY AND INADEQUATE ENQUIRY. IF THERE IS A LACK OF ENQUIRY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CAN BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS, HOWEVER, IN CASE INADEQUACY OF ENQUIRY CANNOT BE A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR REVISING ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE LD.PR.CIT SIMPLY DIRECTED THE LD.AO TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRY, HAD NOT TAKEN ANY STEP TO MAKE ENQUIRY HIMSELF AND ALSO NOT POINTED OUT THAT HOW AND IN WHAT MANNER THE ENQUIRY MADE BY THE LD.AO IS NOT SUFFICIENT. TO SUPPORT HIS SUBMISSION, THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: CIT VS. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD (2009) 31 DTR 1 (DELHI HIGH COURT ), MUKESH JAYANTILAL KANAKHARA (2017) 184 TTJ 673 (RAJKOT-TRIB), BODHISATTVA CHATTOPADHYAY VS. CIT (2929) 185 DTR 89 (KOL-TRIB) CIT VS NIRAV MODI (2016) 71 TAXMANN.COM 272 ( BOMBAY HIGH COURT) ITO VS. DG HOUSING PROJECTS LTD. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (DEL) 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. CIT-DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. PCIT. LD. CIT-DR FOR THE REVENUE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SILENT ABOUT THE VARIOUS ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO.83/RPR/2020 KAILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN, (A.Y.2010-11) 11 ACCEPTED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE ISSUES AT LENGTH. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS RE-OPENED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ON 20.02,.2018. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 03.12.2018 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.3.19 LAKH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED ON PAGE-2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH RETURN OF INCOME IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME, DETAILS OF BANK STATEMENT AND THE REPLY OF QUESTIONNAIRE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER RECORDED THAT ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAIL THEREOF, WHICH HAS BEEN KEPT ON RECORD AFTER DISCUSSING WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED OF BUSINESS OF SUPPLYING BUILDING MATERIAL AND TRANSPORTATION. AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONDITION OF ITA NO.83/RPR/2020 KAILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN, (A.Y.2010-11) 12 ASSESSEE, THE INCOME DECLARED BY ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED. THE LD. PCIT REVISED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY TAKING VIEW THAT NO PROPER ENQUIRY WAS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.14.48 LAKH AND THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN ABSENCE OF PROPER VERIFICATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO MAKE ADEQUATE ENQUIRY WITH REGARD TO GENUINENESS OF THE BUSINESS, SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS AND CREDIT ENTRIES. 10. WE FIND THAT THE LD. PCIT HAS NOT SPECIFIED AS TO WHAT ENQUIRY WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. WE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE LD. PCIT REVISED THE ORDER BY TAKING VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE INADEQUATE ENQUIRY. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS., SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT INADEQUACY OF ENQUIRY CANNOT BE SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR TAKING ACTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. ADMITTEDLY, THIS CASE IS NOT CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY. AS NOTED ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REQUIRED THE ITA NO.83/RPR/2020 KAILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN, (A.Y.2010-11) 13 ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAIL INCOME TAX RETURN, COMPUTATION OF INCOME, DETAILS OF BANK STATEMENT AND THE REPLY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RAISED TO ASSESSEE ABOUT THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS. BEFORE US THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES DECLARED INCOME OF RS.1.80 LAKH FROM BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION UNDER SECTION 44AE AND RS.1.39 LAKH FROM TRADING IN BUILDING MATERIAL RESPECTIVELY (BEING @ 8% OF TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS.17.44 LAKH). TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE FILED BALANCE-SHEET, TRADING OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS ON 31.03.2015, CASH BOOK AND BANK STATEMENT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING CASH BALANCE OF RS.12.41 LAKH AS ON 15.01.2015 AND THE CASH BALANCE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING MONTHS WAS RS.12.23 LAKH, RS.12.02 LAKH AND RS.10.29 LAKH AS ON 31.12.2014, 30.11.2014 AND 30.10.2014 RESPECTIVELY. ALL THESE FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE LD. CIT-DR. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTUAL AND LEGAL DISCUSSION, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE SUFFICIENT ENQUIRIES DURING THE ASSESSMENT AND TOOK REASONABLE AND POSSIBLE VIEW. IN OUR VIEW, IF THE REVIEW TAKEN BY ASSESSING ITA NO.83/RPR/2020 KAILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN, (A.Y.2010-11) 14 OFFICER IS NOT ACCEPTABLE LD. PCIT, ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 CANNOT BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE FOR REVISING THE ORDER ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT THE TWIN CONDITION I.E., ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE MUST BE FULFILLED SIMULTANEOUSLY AT THE COST OF REPETITION. 11. WE MAY FURTHER ADD THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY, THE LD. PCIT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 HELD THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ADEQUATE ENQUIRY. THEREFORE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. PCIT UNDER SECTION 263 IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE SAME IS QUASHED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 02/09/2021 BY PLACING THE RESULT ON THE NOTICE BOARD AS PER RULE 34(5) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULE, 1963. SD/- SD/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SURAT, DATED: 02/09/2021 / *SGR ITA NO.83/RPR/2020 KAILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN, (A.Y.2010-11) 15 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT- 2. RESPONDENT- PCIT, BILASPUR. 3. CIT-RAIPUR 4. CIT 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, RAIPUR