Case Law Details
Chandrakant Tatoba Patil Vs PCIT (ITAT Pune)
ITAT noted that on an examination of the assessment record, the PCIT found abnormal increase in cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to pre-demonetization period. According to the PCIT, during the period from 09-11-2016 to 31-12-2016, the assessee deposited cash amounting to Rs.1,43,81,225/- which is inclusive of an amount of Rs.74,88,867/- from Smt. Manisha Patil. There was no evidences in support of cash deposits made during de-monetization period to an extent of Rs.1,43,81,225/-.
According to the PCIT that the CBDT issued instructions and an SOP for completing the assessments involving issue of huge cash deposits by the assessee during the demonetization period and there was no verification by the AO in terms of the said SOP issued by the CBDT. The ld. DR, Shri Keyur Patel argued that the AO failed to conduct the proceedings in terms of instructions issued by the CBDT particularly cases relating to cash deposits during demonetization period. Thus, the CBDT clearly instructed to all the Assessing Officers to conduct assessment in terms of the said SOP.
The PCIT on an examination of the assessment record found that no enquiry conducted in terms of instructions issued by the CBDT and drew our attention to the assessment order. On perusal of the assessment order, we note that there was no reference or whatsoever in respect of cash deposits and the CBDT instructions. We find the ld. DR drew our attention to para 3 of the impugned order and argued that there was no verification by the AO in this regard as correctly pointed by the PCIT.
ITAT note that the PCIT only remanded the matter to the file of AO for proper examination on facts and applicability of provisions of law along with SOP issued by the CBDT and no prejudice would cause to the assessee in representing his case before the AO with evidences if any rebutting the finding of PCIT in respect of huge cash deposits during demonetization period. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of PCIT and it is justified. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 11-03-2022 passed u/s. 263 of the Act by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Pune (“PCIT”) for assessment year 2017-18.
2. We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Thus, the assessee called absent and set ex-parte. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal by hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material available on record.
3. The assessee raised five grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the PCIT justified in invoking the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act.
4. We note that on an examination of the assessment record, the PCIT found abnormal increase in cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to pre-demonetization period. According to the PCIT, during the period from 09-11-2016 to 31-12-2016, the assessee deposited cash amounting to Rs.1,43,81,225/- which is inclusive of an amount of Rs.74,88,867/- from Smt. Manisha Patil. There was no evidences in support of cash deposits made during de-monetization period to an extent of Rs.1,43,81,225/-. According to the PCIT that the CBDT issued instructions and an SOP for completing the assessments involving issue of huge cash deposits by the assessee during the demonetization period and there was no verification by the AO in terms of the said SOP issued by the CBDT. The ld. DR, Shri Keyur Patel argued that the AO failed to conduct the proceedings in terms of instructions issued by the CBDT particularly cases relating to cash deposits during demonetization period. Thus, the CBDT clearly instructed to all the Assessing Officers to conduct assessment in terms of the said SOP. The PCIT on an examination of the assessment record found that no enquiry conducted in terms of instructions issued by the CBDT and drew our attention to the assessment order. On perusal of the assessment order, we note that there was no reference or whatsoever in respect of cash deposits and the CBDT instructions. We find the ld. DR drew our attention to para 3 of the impugned order and argued that there was no verification by the AO in this regard as correctly pointed by the PCIT. We note that the PCIT only remanded the matter to the file of AO for proper examination on facts and applicability of provisions of law along with SOP issued by the CBDT and no prejudice would cause to the assessee in representing his case before the AO with evidences if any rebutting the finding of PCIT in respect of huge cash deposits during demonetization period. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of PCIT and it is justified. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
5. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 02nd February, 2023.
