Jayesh Dahyabhai Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 91/AHD/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2825 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRISUDHENDUDAS; CITDR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIBTTHAKKAR; OBSERVINGTHATTHEAOWAS

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण , अहमदाबादनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, ‘’B’’BENCH,AHMEDABAD BEFORESHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER And SHRISIDDHARTHANAUTIYAL,JUDICIALMEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITANo.91/AHD/2021 धििाधरणवरध / Asstt.Year:2011-2012 JayeshDahyabhaiPatel, 101,SaurinTower(RAVI), NearVasnaBusStop, Ahmedabad. PAN:AERPP0120K Vs. ThePrincipalCommissioner ofIncomeTax, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad. (Applicant)(Respondent) Assesseeby:ShriBTThakkar,AR Revenueby:ShriSudhenduDas,CITDR सुिवाईकीतारीख/DateofHearing:09/01/2024 घोरणाकीतारीख /DateofPronouncement:06/03/2024 आदेश/ORDER PERWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER: ThecaptionedappealhasbeenfiledattheinstanceoftheAssesseeagainst theorderoftheLearnedPrincipalCommissionerofIncomeTax,Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabadarisinginthematterofassessmentorderpassedunders.263ofthe IncomeTaxAct,1961(here-in-afterreferredtoas"theAct")relevanttothe AssessmentYear2011-2012. ITAno.91/AHD/2021 A.Y.2011-12 2 2.TheonlyissuedraisedbytheassesseeisthattheLd.PCITu/s263ofthe Acterredinholdingtheassessmentframedu/s144r.w.s.147oftheActas erroneousinsofarprejudicialtotheinterestofrevenue. 3.Thenecessaryfactsarethattheassesseeinthepresentcaseisan individualandfiledhisreturnofincomedeclaringanincomeofRs.12,24,990/- onlydated11/04/2012whichwasprocessedu/s143(1)oftheAct.Subsequently, theproceedingsu/s147oftheAct,wereinitiatedwhichcametobecompleted aftermakingadditionofRs.1,09,00,000/-u/s68oftheActvideorderdated 11/10/2018.Subsequently,theLd.PCITonexaminationoftheassessment recordsfoundthatthereweredepositsofRs.1,27,39,000/-inthebankaccount buttheAOverifiedthesumofRs.1,09,00,000/-only.Thus,aspertheLd.PCIT therewasnoinquirymadebytheAOwithrespecttotheremainingdepositsofRs. 18,39,000/-only(1,27,39,000/-minusRs.1,09,00,000/-).Accordingly,theLd. PCITwasoftheviewthattheassessmentframediserroneousinsofarprejudicial totheinterestoftherevenue.OnquestionbytheLd.PCIT,theassessee submittedthatthereopeningwasmadeu/s147oftheActtoverifythesourceof creditinthebankaccounttothetuneofRs.1,09,00,000/-whichhavealready beenaddedtothetotalincomeoftheassesseeintheassessmentframedunder section143(3)/147oftheAct. 3.1Furthermore,suchadditionofRs.1,09,00,000/-hasalreadybeensettled undervivad-se-viswasscheme.Accordingly,theassesseecontendedthatthere wasnoerrorcausingprejudicialtotheinterestoftherevenue.However,theLd. PCIT,disagreedwiththecontentionoftheassesseebyobservingthattheAOwas undertheobligationtoconducttheinquiriesfortheremainingdepositsofRs. 18,39,000/-whichhasnotbeendone.Thus,theassessmenthasbeenframed withoutconductingproperinquires.Accordingly,theLd.PCIT,directedtheAOto makefreshassessmentbyobservingasunder: ITAno.91/AHD/2021 A.Y.2011-12 3 11.Afterhavingconsideredthepositionoflawandfactsandcircumstancesoftheinstant case,Iamoftheconsideredopinionthattheassessmentorderu/s.143(3)oftheAct dated20.11.2018passedbytheAssessingOfficeriserroneousinsofarasitisprejudicial totheinterestofrevenueinaccordancewiththeExplanation2(a)&2(b)belowsection 263(1)oftheActastheorderispassedwithoutmakinginquiriesorverificationwhich shouldhavebeenmadeandhenceithasmadetheassessmentorderpassednotonly erroneousbutalsoprejudicialtotheinterestofrevenue.Accordingly,theimpugned assessmentorderissetasidewithadirectiontotheAssessingOfficertomakerequisite inquiriesandproperverificationwithregardtotheissuesmentionedaboveandredothe assessmentde-novoafterdueconsiderationofthefactsandlawinthisregard.The assesseeisatlibertytoadducethefactsasdeemedrelevantbeforetheassessingofficer atthetimeofassessmentproceedingsinconsequencetothisorderandtheAssessing Officershallallowtheassesseeadequateopportunityofbeingheardandtomakerelevant submissions.Itmaybeensuredthatthefreshassessmentorderispassedwithinthe prescribedtimeasstipulatedundersection153(3)oftheAct. 4.BeingaggrievedbytheorderoftheLd.PCIT,theassesseeisinappeal beforeus. 5.TheLd.ARbeforeusfiledapaperbookrunningfrompage1to10and reiteratedthecontentionasmadebeforetheLd.PCIT. 6.Ontheotherhand,theLd.DRvehementlysupportedtheorderoftheLd. PCIT. 7.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Onperusalofthereasonrecordedforissuingof noticeu/s148oftheAct,wenotethatthereopeningwasinitiatedforthe depositsofRs.1,09,00,000/-andotherdepositsandwithdrawalinthebank accountbearingnumber204710110001182.However,theAOwhileframingthe assessmenthasconfinedthescopeofverificationtothetuneofRs.1,09,00,000/- onlyandtheAOhasnotgonetotheverifytheotherdepositsandwithdrawalfrom thebankwhichwereformingpartofthereasonrecordedforinitiatingthe proceedingsu/s148oftheAct.Thisfactcanbeverifiedfromthereasonrecorded whichareavailableonrecord. ITAno.91/AHD/2021 A.Y.2011-12 4 7.1Itisthesettledlawthattheassessmentorderbecomeserroneousinsofar prejudicialtotheinterestofrevenueifthesamehasbeenmadewithout conductingproperinquiries.Inviewoftheabove,wedonotfindanyinfirmityin therevisionalorderpassedbytheLd.PCITu/s263oftheActinthegivenfacts andcircumstancesandaccordingly,wedeclinetointerfereinsuchorder.Hence, thegroundofappealoftheassesseeisherebydismissed. 8.Intheresult,theappealfiledbytheassesseeisdismissed. OrderpronouncedintheCourton06/03/2024atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (SIDDHARTHANAUTIYAL)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated06/03/2024 Manish