IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 306 to 308/NAG/2024 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 to 2015-16)

Yogesh Khandelwal, 1, DCIT/ACIT, Circle, Akola Rajesh Investments, vs Kirana Bazar, Akola, Maharashtra-444 001 PAN : ADJPK 3301 Q Assessee Respondent Assessee by : Shri Mahavir Atal, CA Revenue by : Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 24.02.2026 Date of pronouncement : 16.04.2026

O R D E R

PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM:

These bunch of three appeals have been filed by the same assessee against the separate orders of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur (for short, “PCIT”) all dated 27/03/2024 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) for the Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively.

2. Since facts and issues involved in all the appeals are identical, they were clubbed, heard together, and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity, the facts of ITA No. 306/NAG/2024 are taken as a lead case for adjudication.

3. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that Ld. PCIT was not justified in invoking section 263 on a mere change of opinion or on an AO’s reference, without independent enquiry to establish error and prejudice to revenue.

4. Facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 declaring income of Rs.2,99,887/- furnished on 27.03.2014. On the basis of information received from DCIT (CC)-4(4), Mumbai, Ld.Assessing Officer (AO) found that assessee had deposited Rs. 6,58,05,000/- with M/s. Shri Renuka Mata State Urban Co-operative (SRMSUC) during the year under consideration.

Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 was issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the notice, assessee filed return of income declaring the same income as was declared in original return of income. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and reasons for reopening of the case were provided to the assessee. After considering the explanation and documentary evidence regarding source and nature of deposits, Ld. AO accepted the income as returned by the assessee in accordance with section 144B of the Act and the assessment was carried out in a faceless manner.

5. On perusal of the records, Ld. PCIT formed an opinion that the assessment order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, as the same was passed without making requisite enquiries or verifications based on a recommendation of Ld. AO. Accordingly, invoking the provisions of section 263, a notice was issued to the assessee. In response, assessee submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings under section 147, the Ld. AO had conducted detailed enquiries with regard to the cash transactions and after being satisfied, accepted the return of income filed by the assessee. However, the said explanation did not find favour with the Ld. PCIT, who consequently set aside the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 to the Ld. AO with a direction to verify the limited issue of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 12,76,67,270/- with SRMSUC.

6. Aggrieved by the revisionary order passed by the Ld.PCIT, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the order passed by the Ld.PCIT u/s. 263 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. It was contended that during the course of assessment proceedings u/s. 147, Ld.AO had conducted detailed enquiries with respect to the cash deposits. The assessee had duly furnished all necessary details, explanations, and supporting evidences, which were examined by the Ld. AO before accepting the returned income. It was further argued that the documents furnished before the Ld. PCIT clearly establish the genuineness as well as the source of the cash deposits. Ld.AO, after due verification and application of mind, accepted the explanation of the assessee.