NARENDRA KUMAR MAKHIJA,KOTA V. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 605/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the assessment order for the year 2018-19 concerning Narendra Kumar Makhija, who faced scrutiny over unexplained cash deposits totaling Rs. 14,38,81,100. The Assessing Officer initially added Rs. 1,43,81,100 (10% of the deposits) as unexplained income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, citing lack of supporting documents. The PCIT later set aside this order, suggesting the entire amount should be considered unexplained. The tribunal, however, reinstated the original assessment, emphasizing that the PCIT did not conduct a thorough inquiry and merely differed in opinion without substantial evidence to support a complete re-assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785101 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Malabar Industrial Limited v/s CIT, TTK LIG Ltd., v/s ACIT, Arvee International v/s Addl. CIT, CIT vs Raisons Industries ltd, Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALKA GAUTAM
• Assessee Lawyers: B.L. BHOJWANI; A SUM OF RS.; WHICH
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences; Rejection of books of accounts; Assessment record; Revision of order
• Section: 263; 68

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihyla-@ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 Narendra Kumar Makhija Old Dhan Mandi, Kota. cuke Vs. The PCIT, Udaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.ABMPM2585P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri B.L. Bhojwani, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :12/11/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 13/11/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIALMEMBER . Assessee faced assessment proceedings, relating to the assessment year 2018-19. Completion of said proceedings led to passing of assessment order dated 14.03.2023. The assessee challenged the same before Learned CIT(A). Said appeal is pending before Learned CIT(A), as claimed by the appellant. 2. But, even before the challenge to the assessment order by way of appeal could be adjudicated, on 20.02.2025, Learned PCIT passed order Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. u/s 263 of the Act in relation to the above mentioned assessment order and thereby set aside the assessment order in part and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the issue of cash deposit of Rs. 14,38,81,100/-, while finalizing assessment having regard to the observations made in the order u/s 263 of the Act, though of course, while providing ample opportunities of being heard, to the assessee. Feeling aggrieved by the said order u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee is before this Appellate Tribunal. 3. Arguments heard. File perused. 4. As noticed above, assessment proceedings led to the assessment order dated 14.03.2023, and total income of the assessee was re- computed as Rs. 2,59,49,670/-. Vide said assessment order, one of the additions made by the Assessing Officer was u/s 68 of the Act, as regards cash credit of Rs. 1,43,81,100/-. As noticed above, the order u/s 263 of the Act pertains to the issue of said cash deposit. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. 5. Learned PCIT has observed in para 8 of the impugned order that the assessment order suffered from specific defects, and as such, the same was erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Observations by Assessing Officer for making addition on the issue of cash deposits 6. In para 7.4 of the assessment order, while dealing with the issue of cash credit, the Assessing Officer recorded his observations in the manner as:- “7.4 Further, on the issue of cash deposits, as discussed in above paras,, the assessee has deposited huge case and merely filing reply without supporting evidences cannot be treated as genuine transaction. From the details available, it is noticed that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.2,98,62,000/- in the HDFC bank and an amount of Rs.11,39,49,000/-was deposited in the ICICI bank. Your reply submitted on 13.02.2023 lacks documentary evidences in support of these transaction and hence, the source of cash deposits of Rs. 14,38,11,000/- Rs.2,98,62,000+ Rs.11,39,49,000] is still unexplained. There is no invoice copy of purchase and sales, no detail of purchasers and sellers etc, there is no detail of GST amount deducted on cash purchase/sales or other than cash purchase sales. The source of cash deposited in the bank accounts are also not fully explained. The cash book was also not submitted by the assessee. The case law submitted by the assessee is also not found applicable in assessee's case as the facts of the case are different. The onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction Further as per Form 3CB-3CD, it is noted that the assessee has made huge business transaction with sister concern. It is noted Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. that the assessee has made purchase transaction of Rs. 5,13.92.189/- with M/s Satyam Marketing (Proprietary concern of the Father's HUF of the proprietor and Purchases transaction of Rs. 3,52,94,269/- with M/s Rajesh kumar and Company (Proprietary concern of the Father of the proprietor) during the year. The assessee has not submitted proper detail and hence, transaction of purchase and sales in regards to cash deposits are not verifiable. Looking at the nature of business and other details available on record, 10% of the total cash deposited is considered as unexplained income of the assessee and therefore, an amount of Rs. 1,43,81,100/-being 10% of total cash deposited i. e Rs. 14,38,11,000/- is added to the total income of the assessee as per provision of section 68 of the Act as the reply of the assessee lacks evidentiary value and not satisfactorily.” 7. From the above observations, it transpires that the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had not submitted proper details, and as such transactions of purchase and sales with regard to cash deposits were not verifiable. Consequently, the Assessing Officer took into consideration nature of business and other details available on record and found it proper to treat only 10% of the total cash deposits, as unexplained income of the assessee i.e. Rs. 1,43,81,100/- being 10% of total sum of Rs. 14,38,11,000/-. That is how, addition of equal sum of Rs. 1,43,81,100/- was made re-computing the total of the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. Impugned order is passed by Learned PCIT setting aside the assessment order in part 8. As regards the impugned order, passed by Learned PCIT , in para 3 to 35 thereof ,following facts were taken into consideration on examination of assessment records:- “3. Further, on examination of assessment records, it was noticed that- 3.1 The AO/NaFAC while completing the assessment, made one of the additions u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs. 1,43,81,100/- being 10% of the total cash deposits of Rs.14,38,11,000/-, during the year under consideration, which according to the AO and according to the Assessment Order dated 14/03/2023, was remained Un-explained. 3.2 It is seen from the Assessment Order dated 14/03/2023, supra, that the impugned addition of Rs. 1,43,81,100/- was made by the AO after recording the reasons (in the form of finding at Para 7.4 of the Assessment Order) that the cash deposits of Rs. 14,38,11,000/- were remained un-explained, as there were no invoice copy of purchase and sales, no details of purchasers and sellers etc., no details of GST amount deducted on cash purchases/sales or other than cash purchase sales were provided/furnished for consideration of the AO during the Assessment proceedings, despite being given reasonable opportunities of being heard on the issue. 3.3 Moreover, the AO found that Cash-Book was not submitted/furnished for verification etc. However, after such categorical finding of amount of Cash Deposits into the Bank Account of HDFC Bank (Rs.2,98,62,000/-) and ICICI Bank (Rs.11,39,49,000/-), being remained Unexplained, only an amount of Rs.1,43,81,000/- [@ 10% of such Cash Deposits of Rs. 14,38,81,100/-) was Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. added to the total income as per provision of Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. While doing so, the AO/NaFAC concluded that the reply filed by the assessee, on the issue, lack evidentiary value and was not satisfactory. 3.4 In absence of all supporting documents viz. Bills/Vouchers etc. related to the Cash Deposits of Rs. 14,38,81,000/- vis-à-vis the CASH BOOK, the cash deposits of Rs. 14,38,81,000/- was remained unexplained and hence, the same was required to be added to the Total Income for the impugned Assessment Year. As the AO didn't make the addition of Rs.14,38,81,000/- therefore the Income was under assessed by Rs.9.98,84,598/- (Rs.14.38.81,000 Rs.1,43.81,000) which was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3.5 Accordingly, the Assessing officer didn't appreciate the correct assumption of facts and also the correct application of law while computing the Total Income while completing the assessment on 14/03/2023 in terms of making the addition on account of Cash Credits (Cash Deposits) which, according to the AO, remained un-explained due to non-furnishing of corroborative documentary evidence in support of the claim so made by the assessee in this regard.” 9. In view of the above, Learned PCIT found that “the Assessing officer had not appreciated the correct application of facts and of law, while completing the assessment, and as such, it was proposed to modified the assessment order, while exercising powers u/s 263 of the Act”. That is how, a notice under this provision of law came to be issued to the assessment on 10.09.2024. 10. As per impugned order, the assessee did not file any response to the above said notice dated 10.09.2024. Accordingly, another notice dated Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. 26.09.2024 was issued to the assessee so as to provide him another opportunity of being heard. Thereupon, the assessee submitted his reply on 10.10.2024. 11. On consideration of all the facts and circumstances enumerated from the material available on record and the reply submitted by the assessee, Learned PCIT passed the impugned order, while relying on following decisions, while setting aside the assessment order as regards the only issue of cash deposits of Rs. 14,38,81,100/-, and issued directions to the Assessing Officer, as noticed above:-  Malabar Industrial Limited v/s CIT, 243 ITR ( S.C);  TTK LIG Ltd., v/s ACIT, (Mad) 51 DTR 228;  Arvee International v/s Addl. CIT, (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495.  CIT vs Raisons Industries ltd, 288 ITR 322 (SC); and  Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 ( Mad. H.C) 12. In para 7.4 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer dealt with the issue of cash deposit and observed that the assessee had deposited cash to the tune of Rs. 2,98,62,000/- with HDFC Bank and sum of Rs. 11,39,49,000/- with ICICI Bank. Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. As regards the reply submitted by the assessee relating to the said deposit, the Assessing Officer observed that the reply submitted on 13.02.2023 lacked documentary evidence in support of the said transactions, and as such, source of said cash deposit i.e. to the tune of Rs. 14,38,11,000/- remained unexplained. The Assessing Officer observed in para 7.4 that there was no invoice copy of purchase and sales or any details of purchasers andsellers; details of GST amount deducted relating to cash purchases/sales or other than cash purchase sales. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee had failed to submit even the cash book. As regards the case law/decisions cited on behalf of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that same were distinguishable because of difference in facts. He further observed that in order to prove genuineness of the transaction onus was on the assessee. 13. From Form 3CB -3CD, Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had made huge business transactions with its sister concern. The assessee was found to have made purchase transaction of Rs. 5,13,92,189/- with M/s Styam Marketing proprietary concern of HUF of the Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. father, and purchase transactions of Rs. 3,52,94,269/- with M/s Rajesh Kumar & Company proprietorship concern of his father. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee had not submitted proper details, and as such, transactions of purchase and sales were not verifiable. That is how, the Assessing Officer deemed it a fit case to consider only 10% of the total cash deposit as unexplained income of the assessee. 14. Learned PCIT was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer under- assessed income of the assessee by a sum of Rs. 9,98,84,598/-, which was erroneous and prejudicial of the interest of the Revenue, as the Assessing Officer did not make addition of the entire sum of Rs. 14,38,81,000/-. Contentions 15. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,43,81,100/- i.e. 10% of the total cash deposit of Rs. 14,38,11,000/-, while resorting to the provisions of section 68 of the Act, even when he found that the reply of the assessee lacked evidence and was not satisfactory. Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. Accordingly, Ld. AR for the appellant has urged that once the Assessing Officer applied his mind to all the facts and circumstances relating to the issue of cash deposits and opted to consider only 10% of the total cash as unexplained income, it cannot be said that the assessment order was passed without application of mind. In support of his submission, ld. AR for the appellant has pointed out that as per e- assessment scheme resorted to while passing assessment order like the order dated 14.03.2023, four units i.e. Assessment unit, Verification unit, Review unit and Technical unit work in consonance with each other, and as such, there cannot be said to be possibility of any assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Ld. AR for the appellant has thus contended that the view taken by Learned PCIT that the entire amount of Rs. 14,38,81,000/- was required to be added to the total income, u/s 68 of the Act, cannot be allowed to stand, when the assessment order was passed after due application of mind to all the facts and circumstances material, and as such, impugned order deserves to be set aside. 16. On the other hand, Learned DR for the department has defended the impugned order passed by Learned PCIT for the reasons recorded therein, Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. and contended that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order whereby the Assessing Officer has been issued directions for re- examining the issue of cash deposits only. Discussion 17. As noticed above, the Assessing Officer took into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the reply furnished by the assessee and other details available as regards cash deposit of Rs. 14,38,11,000/-, and was of the considered view that the source of said cash deposits remained unexplained. In this regard, the Assessing Officer recorded specific reasons like non production of supporting evidence i.e. invoice copies of purchases and sales, details of purchaser and sellers, details of GST amount, if any deducted on said purchase/sales other than on cash, and non production of the cash book. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer was of the view that transactions of purchase and sales in regard to cash deposits were not verifiable. Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. Having regard to the nature of the business and other details available, the Assessing Officer deemed it appropriate to consider only 10% of the total cash deposit as unexplained income of the assessee. 18. At this stage, provisions of section 68 of the Act need to be reproduced for ready reference. Section 68 reads as under:- “Cash credits. 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income- tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year : Provided that where the sum so credited consists of loan or borrowing or any such amount, by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless,— (a) theperson in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such assessee also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited; and (b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: Provided further that where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee- company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless— (a) the person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited; and (b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: Provided also that nothing contained in the first proviso or second proviso shall apply if the person, in whose name the sum referred to therein is recorded, is a venture capital fund or a venture capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10.” Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. 19. From the above said provisions, it can be said that where the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of any sum found credited in the books of the assessee, for any previous year or in case, the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to Income Tax as income of the assessee of that previous year. Here, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer the unexplained income was only to the extent of 10% of the total cash deposits. In other words, he did not doubt case of the claimant regarding balance 90% of the cash deposits. On the other hand, Learned PCIT was of the opinion that entire cash deposits, and not only to the extent of 10%, was the unexplained income. 20. As per impugned order passed by Learned PCIT, we find that he has set aside the assessment order only in respect of the issue of cash deposits while observing that the same suffered from serious defects in proper application of facts as well as law. Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. It is settled law that while exercising revision- powers under section 263 of the Act, the revisional authority is to satisfy himself that the assessment order is erroneous in nature in so far as same is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. To record such satisfaction, firstly he is required to enquire into the matter himself. While going through the impugned order, we find that after calling for the record pertaining to assessment of the assessment year under consideration, Learned PCIT issued notice to the assessee on the issue of “computation of correct total income”. In his reply dated 13.2.2023, on the said issue of cash deposits with two banks, the assessee submitted that he is engaged in the business of trading in paan masala, zarda as a proprietor of M/s Disha Enterprises, and further that he is also proprietr of M/s L.R. Fragrance which is engaged in the business of manufacturing mouth freshener and betel nut and also trading in paan masala etc. The assessee responded that as per return of income for the year under consideration, sales were to the tune of Rs. 12.43 crores; net profoit was Rs. 49.42 lakhs and the returned income was Rs. 1,05,05,540/-. Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. As regards sales, he explained that same are mostly in cash and that sale proceeds is the source of cash deposits in the banks. In this regard, the assessee relied on chart showing month wise break up of cash and credit sale alongwith tax component, as Annexure-vii; chart depicting deposit of cash in the two accounts as Annexure-viii; list of all the bank accounts as Annexure-ix; and copies of al the bank statements as Annexure-x. Case of the assessee from the very beginning is that his books of account are subjected to audit as regards tax and that no discrepancy was noticed therein. Learned AR for the appellant has submitted that in this situation Learned PCIT could not opine that the entire amount of cash deposited in the bank remained as unexplained income. Further it has been submitted that once the Assessing Officer considered the material available with him and took a particular view that only 10% of the cash deposits was to be charged to tax, Learned PCIT could not observe that entire cash deposit remained unexplained and was required to be added to the total income. As to which order is deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue? Printed from counselvise.com 16 ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. 21. Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act declares that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner- (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Baord under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. Indisputably, present case is not covered by clause © or (d) of Explanation 2 of section 263. Printed from counselvise.com 17 ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. From the impugned order, we do not find any observation made by Learned PCIT that no inquiry or verification was made by the Assessing Officer. Rather, from the assessment order, we find that enquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer on the issue of cash deposits for the purposes of verification of the facts on the issue. This is also not a case where the Assessing Officer has considered 10% of the cash deposits to be the unexplained income without inquiring into the claim. Whether the PCIT himself conducted any enquiry for his satisfaction to arrive at the conclusion ? 22. Learned PCIT arrived at the conclusion that the Assessing Officer did not appreciate correct assumption of facts and correct application of law, as the entire amount of cash deposits (and not only 10%) was to be added to the total income. It is true that the Assessing Officer observed that there were no invoice copy of purchase and sales, no details of purchasers and sellers, no details of GST amount deducted on cash purchases/sales or other than cash purchase sales and even cash book was not made available. Printed from counselvise.com 18 ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. 23. As per settled law, on a proper application of mind the Commissioner must, come to a firm conclusion that the order is erroneous and the error has resulted in prejudice to the interests of the Revenue. The conclusion is required to be based on proper material. In his order, the Commissioner is also required to mention the material on the basis of which he deemed it proper to order an enquiry into the matter. From the impugned order, it does not transpire that Learned PCIT, before passing the impugned order, himself conducted any enquiry on the aspect as to how this was a case of “incorrect application of facts”. When the Assessing Officer was of the view that only 10% of the cash deposits was chargeable to tax, he must have considered certain facts to arrive at such a conclusion to restrict the addition only to 10%, because there is nothing in the assessment order to suggest that the books of accounts of the assessee were rejected in entirety as regards said issue of cash deposits. In the given situation, to satisfy himself, Learned PCIT should have gone through the entire material that was available with the Assessing Officer. Not only this, Learned PCIT could ask for additional relevant material, if any, even by issuing directions to the assessee, in view of the Printed from counselvise.com 19 ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. fact that the Assessing Officer had not rejected the books of accounts, and as claimed by the assessee, the books of account were subjected to Tax Audit and no discrepancy was found therein. From the impugned order, we do not find that Learned PCIT asked for production of any additional relevant material to verify the facts which led the Assessing Officer to consider the unexplained income only to the extent of 10% of the entire sum of cash deposits. This goes to show that Learned PCIT himself did not conduct any enquiry into the matter before setting aside the assessment order on the opinion and for the reasons, recorded therein. There is no explanation in this regard from the side of the department. Is it not a case of a view or opinion different from that of the Assessing Officer? 24. It can safely be said that the material available with the Assessing Officer and Learned PCIT was one the same. When the material available with the Assessing Officer and Learned PCIT was same, it can safely be said to be a case of one view taken or Printed from counselvise.com 20 ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. opinion given by the Assessing Officer and the other view or opinion, on the same material, to be that of Learned PCIT. As per settled law, section 263 of the Act does not empower the Commissioner to exercise powers of revision simply because of he is of a view or opinion different from that of the Assessing Officer arrived at on the same material. Even on this ground, we find that the impugned order cannot stand the scrutiny of law. As to why the Commissioner did not exercise power to correct the errors? 25. Section 263 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to pass such order, after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and after enquiry, as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. In case Learned PCIT was satisfied that total cash deposit amount was chargeable to tax, he could himself take steps to pass order for correct of effort of facts and law, and proceed in accordance with the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 21 ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. Here, Learned PCIT did not take any such step. It remains unexplained as to why Learned PCIT himself did not take steps to pass order for correction of error of facts and law, and rather, he opted to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification and finalizing the assessment. At the same time, there is nothing in the impugned order to suggest as to why Learned PCIT did not exercise his powers to pass an order enhancing or modifying the assessment. Once Learned PCIT was of the firm view that the entire amount of cash deposits was chargeable to tax, and that the Assessing Officer fell in error in treating only 10% of the cash deposits as the unexplained income, it remains unexplained as to what prevented him from modifying the assessment or enhancing the same. Result 26. In view of the above discussion, we find that the assessment order could not be termed to be erroneous in view of the provisions of section 263 read with Explanation 2 thereof, and as such, hold that Learned PCIT Printed from counselvise.com 22 ITA No. 605/JPR/2025 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. fell in error in setting aside the assessment order on the issue of cash deposits. 27. As a result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 13/11/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 13/11/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- PCIT, Udaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@Theld CIT 4. vk;djvk;qDr@CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 605/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "