Case Law Details
Santosh Pandey Vs PCIT (ITAT Raipur)
ITAT Raipur held that revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act rightly invoked as there is a gross failure on the part of the A.O to verify the nature and source of the cash deposits.
Facts- The Pr. CIT observed that though the case of the assessee was reopened for verifying nature and source of the cash deposits in his bank account amounting to Rs.15 lacs and Rs.28 lacs, but the A.O had failed to carrying out any verifications and summarily accepted the unsubstantiated explanation of the assessee Accordingly, the Pr. CIT vide his order passed u/s. 263 of the Act dated 18.03.2021 held the order passed u/ss. 143(3)/147 dated 11.12.2018 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, and set-aside the assessment order.
Conclusion- Held that as there is a gross failure on the part of the A.O to verify the nature and source of the cash deposits aggregating to Rs.43 lacs, which in itself had formed the very basis for reopening of the assessee’s case u/s.147 of the Act, therefore, the Pr. CIT in exercise of the powers vested with him as per “Explanation 2” of Section 263 of the Act had rightly set-aside his order with a direction to reframe the assessment after carrying out necessary verifications. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations finding no infirmity in the view taken by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, uphold his order.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RAIPUR
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
