##PAGE1##

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट Æयायपीठ, राजकोट।

In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President

And Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member

आयकर अपील स.ं /ITA No. 53/RJT/2022 [ (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष/(cid:91)Assessment Year: 2012-13 ]

Chitan Kanji Katariya The Principal Commissioner Of Nr. Pinjora Peer, B/H. Referral Vs. Income Tax-1

Hospital, Anjar-Kutch-370110 Rajkot-360001, Gujarat Gujarat

èथायीलेखास.ं/जीआइआरस.ं/PAN/GIR No.: ALNPK6008Q (अपीलाथ(cid:568)/Appellant) ((cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)/Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Ram Tiwari, Ld. CIT(DR)

Date of Hearing : 29/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06/08/2026

:: ORDER ::

Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the revisional order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-1 [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.PCIT”] under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 17.01.2022. By the impugned order, the learned PCIT set aside the assessment order dated 13.12.2019, passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act, holding that same to be erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue by conducting necessary enquiries and

investigations and thereafter frame the assessment afresh in accordance with law.

ITA No. 53/RJT/2022 Chintan Kanjibhai Katariya

02. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual carrying on business as a proprietor of M/s Shreeji Engineering Works, filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2012–13 on 30.09.2019, declaring a total income of Rs.23,99,580/-. The assessment was completed ex parte under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 13.12.2019, determining the total income at Rs.52,28,120/-. In the said assessment, the Assessing Officer made a lump-sum addition of Rs.16,63,303/-, being 5% of the cash deposits of Rs.3,32,66,074/- made in the assessee’s bank accounts during the relevant previous year. Subsequently, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-1, on examination of the assessment records, formed a prima facie view that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. According to the PCIT, the assessee had deposited cash aggregating to Rs.3,32,66,074/- in the bank accounts during the relevant previous year and had failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding the source thereof. Therefore, the entire amount was liable to be assessed as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer had made only an estimated addition of Rs.16,63,303/-, equivalent to 5% of the cash deposits, without making any proper enquiry or assigning cogent reasons for adopting such an estimate. Accordingly, the PCIT invoked the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act and, vide order dated 17.01.2022, held that the assessment order dated 13.12.2019 passed under section 144 read with section 147 was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. PCIT, therefore, set aside the assessment with a direction to the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment afresh in accordance with

law after conducting necessary enquiries.

03. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the order passed by the Ld.PCIT under section 263 of the Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed. It was contended that the Assessing Officer had duly examined the issue of cash deposits

Page 2 of 4

ITA No. 53/RJT/2022 Chintan Kanjibhai Katariya

amounting to Rs.3,32,66,074/- during the assessment proceedings and, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, estimated the income at 5% of such cash deposits, resulting in an addition of Rs.16,63,303/-. Besides the said addition, the Assessing Officer also