Ita/11/2023 Of Misha Sharma v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax I

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFOREHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSALON THE 18[th] OF APRIL, 2023 INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 11 of 2023 BETWEEN:- NISHA SHARMA, VILLAGE DEORI RAJMARG DISTRICTNARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) (BY SHRI NITIN AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE ) .....APPELLANT AND PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ICENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING STATION ROAD NAPIERTOWN JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) (NO ONE APPEARS FOR RESPONDENT ) .....RESPONDENT This appeal coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SHEELNAGU passed the following: ORDER The present appeal preferred under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Actquestioning the legality and validity of the final order dated 29.09.2022 of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench passed in ITANo.50/JAB/2022 qua assessment year 2017-18 by proposing certain substantialquestions in paragraph 7 of the memo of appeal. 2. Learned counsel for appellant - Shri Nitin Agrawal primarilycontends that despite Assessing Officer having conducted an inquiry into all thematerials and evidence placed before him and having accepted the submission of the assessee justifying the deposit of cash of Rs.16,39,320/- during theperiod of demonitization and seeking large exemption in income and largeagricultural income, the Tribunal committed serious illegality in interfering withthe said finding of Assessing Officer by coming to a finding that there was noinquiry conducted and Assessing Officer who passed order in favour of theassessee without rendering any finding in respect of the crucial aspects raisedbefore him. As such, it is contended that the case raises substantial questions oflaw which need to be answered by this Court based upon the proposedquestions of law in Para 7 of the memo of appeal. 3. A bare perusal of the order of Assessing Officer dated 26.12.2019 (Annexure-A/3) reveals that the Assessing Officer without discussing thematerial and evidence in regard to the objection raised through scrutiny of cash,jumped to the conclusion in favour of the assessee. This is evident from bareperusal of the assessment order which is bereft of any reasoning and findingswhich are heartbeat of every order, be it judicial, quasi judicial or administrative. 4. While judging the legality and validity of the order of AssessmentOfficer, Principal CIT I Jabalpur finding the same be non-speaking andrendered without any finding in respect of both the aspects of agriculturalincome and source of cash deposit, set aside the order of Assessment Officerdated 26.12.2019 and remanded the matter to the Assessment Officer forconduction of inquiry afresh. 5. The impugned order of Assessing Officer is non-speaking inrespect of both the crucial aspects of agricultural income and source of cash deposit. Thus, the Tribunal rightly did not interfere with the order of Principal,CIT dated 21.03.2022 by which the assessment order has been set aside while exercising the power under Section 263 of Income Tax Act. 6. It is pertinent to point out that the Principal CIT I Jabalpur rightly passed an order under Section 263 of Income Tax Act by holding the same tobe prejudicial to the interest of Revenue since the order of Assessing Officerwas passed without inquiry/verification. This power was rightly exercised by thePrincipal CIT I under Clause (a) and (b) of Explanation 2 of Section 263 ofIncome Tax Act. 7. In view of above, it is obvious that the impugned order ofTribunal appears to be passed in accordance with law which does not give riseto any of the proposed substantial question of law. 8. Consequently, this appeal sans merit and is dismissed in limine for not involving any substantial question of law. (SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE Biswal (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)JUDGE