2

3. We have heard both the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay of 224 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is heard on merits.

4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. That the order passed by the Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bhubaneswar u/s 263 of the LT. Act, 1961 is excessive, arbitrary and bad in law.

2. That on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the revisionary proceeding u/s 263 of the LT.Act,1961 by the Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bhubaneswar merely on the basis of finding of the internal audit observations of the internal audit party is bad in law and required to be quashed.

3. That on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the revisionary proceeding u/s 263 of the IT.Act, 1961 is bad in law in absence of any new fact, information, corroborative evidence or materials being made available by the Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bhubaneswar, the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act be annulled and quashed.

4. That the appellant may add, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds at the time of hearing of the matter with the leave of the Hon'ble ITAT.

5. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for A.Y.2012-2013 on 29.08.2012 declaring total income of Rs.1,82,100/- from civil contract. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny u/s.147 of the Act followed by serving of statutory notices along with questionnaire. Thereafter the assessment was completed on 10.11.2016 on total income of Rs.3,41,780/- u/s.143(3)/147 of the Act, making additions of Rs.9,674/- on account of income from other sources and Rs.1,50,000/- on account of income from commission.

6. Subsequently, Ld. Pr. CIT assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act issued following show cause notice:

3

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

OFFICE OF THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX-2, 2nd FLOOR ,AAYAKAR BHAWAN, RAJASWA VIHAR, BHUBANESWAR - 751 007.

F. No.Pr.CIT-2/BBSR/J & T/263/2018-19/4023 Dated, Bhubaneswar the 16th Jan.,2019. To

SHRI SANGRAM KESHARI SAMANTARAY,

PLOT N0.38,

CHINTAMANISWAR AREA,

BUDHESWARI,

BHUBANESWAR -751006.

PAN: BBOPS7915N

Sir,

Sub: Initiation of proceedings u/s 263 of the I.T.Act,1961 for the Asst. Year 2012-13 - Matter regarding.

The assessment in your case for the Assessment Year 2012-13 was completed by the Assessing Officer (here-in-after A.O.) namely ITO, Ward-5(3), Bhubaneswar vide order u/s 143(3)/147 of I.T.Act ,1961 dated 10.11.2016 determining total income at Rs.3,41,780/-. On verification of case record it is observed that you have' purchased immovable property for a consideration of RS.48,48,OOO/- and paid Stamp Duty of Rs.1,60,OOO/- and Registration Fee of Rs.82,400/- totaling Rs.50,90,400/-. With regard to the source of investment in the immovable property, you have claimed to have received advances for sale of land from eight different persons. On the basis of confirmation received, the AO has accepted the source of investment in the immovable property. It is observed from the confirmations received that the persons have not furnished the basic information like PAN, Bank Account No., copy of IT. Returns etc. to establish the creditworthiness of the persons making advance. Most of the persons have admitted that they have given advance in cash but the date of payment has not been provided by them. It is also not verified that whether the persons, who have given advance, were man of means to advance such a huge sum. Hence, the investment in immovable property of Rs.50,90,400/- has been accepted by the AO without conducting due and proper enquiry.

In view of the above, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act,1961 dated 10.11.2016 appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, I propose to revise the assessment order passed under section 143(3)/147 dated 10.11.2016, for the Asstt. Year 2012-13 by invoking provision of section 263 of the I.T.Act,1961.

However, before doing so, I deem it proper to allow the assessee an opportunity of being heard which is fixed at 11.30. A.M. on 29.01.2019- in my office at 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Rajhaswa Vihar, Bhubaneswar. You may appear either in person or through your authorized representative to represent your case. If you so desire, you may file your written submission in this regard, which will be considered before passing any order. In case you fail to avail the opportunity of hearing, order will be passed on the basis of facts available in record.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(Subrat Mishra)

Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-2,

Bhubaneswar

4

7. In the above referred show cause notice it was alleged that the assessing officer has accepted the investment made by the assessee in immovable property of Rs.50,90,400/- without conducting due and proper enquiry. The AO has also not verified as to whether the persons, who have given advance, were not man of means to advance such a huge sum. The show cause notice was duly replied by the assessee submitting that the Ld. AO completed assessment by conducting appropriate enquiries and applied his mind. It was also submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings the AO examined all the issues for which no such observation of the issue raised in the show cause notice is appearing in the body of assessment order cannot give rise to take a view that the order of assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. However, Ld. Pr. CIT was not satisfied with the submissions made by the assessee and concluded to hold the order of the assessing officer as erroneous so for as prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the AO had not made required enquiry/investigation regarding investment made by the assessee in immovable property and accordingly the Pr.CIT set aside the assessment order to the file of AO to redo the assessment after making necessary verification and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

9. Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the following written submission and placing reliance on decisions mentioned herein :-

5

1. No independent application of mind of The Ld. PClT as the issue is based merely on the audit observation and same language has been mentioned in the consequential asst order and 263 order Para 2 of page 2 of Asst order u/s 263/143(3).

2. AO has verified the source of investment issue in details after considering all the necessary details/documents and taken the view to accept the same which is lawful and cannot be call as inadequate enquiry whereas the Ld. PClT has to verify himself to record the finding that the asst order is erroneous when the assessee stated before the Ld PClT to produce the customers in person (submission of the assessee before the Ld. PCIT at Page 2 of PB) .

To support his contentions, ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following case laws :-

i) Nanda Kishore Agarwalla Vs. Pr.CIT, ITA No.212/CTK/2017, order dated 26.04.2018;

ii) Surekha Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT, ITA No.207/CTK/2018, order dated 17.07.2020;

iii) Pr.CIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd., (2017) 398 ITR 8 (Del);

.

iv) Director of Income Tax Vs. Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del;);

v) ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329;

vi) Aditi Aggarwal Vs. Pr.CIT, ITA No.21/Chd/2021, order dated 20.09.2021;

vii) Sh. Jaswinder Singh Vs. CIT-II, ITA No.690/Chd/2010, order dated 09.03.2012;

viii) Shri Sunil Chhagan Bhaybhang Vs. Pr.CIT, ITA No.932/PUN/2016, order dated 07.03.2019; and

ix) Raghunath Exporters Vs. Pr.CIT, ITA No.92/Kol/2017, order dated 10.11.2017.

10. It was also submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that the AO allowed the claim on being satisfied with the explanation of assessee, on an enquiry made during the course of assessment proceedings. Thus, the decision of Ld. AO cannot be held to be erroneous.

11. Per Contra, ld. Departmental Representative (DR) took us through the finding of ld. Pr. CIT and submitted that Pr.CIT has rightly set aside

6

the assessment framed by the AO as the persons who have given the advance to the assessee were not man of means to advance such a huge sum and no proper enquiry has been conducted by the AO. It was also submitted by the ld.DR that most of the persons who have given advance to the assessee have admitted that they have given advance in cash but the date of payment has not been provided by them. Ld. DR also submitted that most of the details in support of source of investment were filed for the first time before the ld. Pr.CIT. The assessee had merely filed a list of persons from whom advance/sale consideration had been received which was used for making investment in purchase of immovable property. The AO made no efforts to call for further details to examine the genuineness and correctness of advance/sale consideration received from various parties. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of M.B.Tyres, 11 TAXMANN 208 and the judgment of Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Virbhadra Singh (HUF) 86 Taxmann.com 113. Therefore, ld. DR submitted that the order passed by the Pr.CIT deserves to be upheld.

12. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us by to the sides and with the assistance of the ld. Counsel, we have considered the documentary evidences brought on record in the form of Paper Book in light of Rule 18(6) of ITAT Rules and have also perused the judicial decisions relied upon by both the sides.

13. We would like to reproduce the provisions of Section 263(1) of the Act, which read as under :-

7

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue.

263. (1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment.

Explanation 1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,—

(a) an order passed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988 by the Assessing Officer shall include—

(i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income- tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A;

(ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section 120;

(b) "record" shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner;

(c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matter of any appeal filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,—

(a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made;

(b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim;

8

(c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or

(d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.

14. It is a settled position of law that powers u/s 263 of the Act can be exercised by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner on satisfaction of twin conditions, i.e., the assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. By 'erroneous' is meant contrary to law. Thus, this power cannot be exercised unless the Ld. Pr. Commissioner is able to establish that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Thus, where there are two possible views and the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views, no action to exercise powers of revision can arise, nor can revisional power be exercised for directing a fuller enquiry to find out if the view taken is erroneous. This power of revision can be exercised only where no enquiry, as required under the law, is done. It is not open to enquire in case of inadequate inquiry. Our view is fortified by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi, [2016] 71 taxmann.com 272 (Bombay).

15. This view is further supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shri Prakash Bhagchand Khatri in Shri Kailash Khandelwal Tax Appeal No. 177 with Tax Appeal No.178 of 2016, wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was seized with the following substantial question of law:-

9

"Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in upholding the order passed by the CIT under section 263 of the Act on merits and still storing the issue of allowability of deduction under section 54 of the Act to the file of Assessing Officer even though the working of allowability of deduction under section 54F is available in the order under section 263 which is not disputed by the assessee before ITAT."

16. And the Hon'ble High Court, after considering the facts, held as under:-

"6. It can thus be seen that though final order of assessment was silent on this aspect, the Assessing Officer had carried out inquiries about the nature of sale of land and about the validity of the assessee's claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act. Learned counsel for the Revenue however submitted that these inquiries were confined to the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act in the context of fulfilling conditions contained therein and may possibly have no relevance to the question whether the sale of land gave rise to a long term capital gain. Looking to the tenor of queries by the Assessing Office and details . A.Y. 2009-10 supplied by the assessee, we are unable to accept such a condition. In that view of the matter, the observation of the Tribunal that the Assessing Officer having made inquiries and when two views are possible, revisional powers could not be exercised, called for no interference. Since with respect to computation and assertions of other aspects of deduction under section 54Fofthe Act, the Tribunal has remanded the proceedings, nothing stated in this order would affect either side in considerations of such claim.

7. No question of law arises. Tax Appeals are dismissed."

17. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar reported in 335 ITR 83 has held that where it was discernible Shri Kailash Khandelwal from record that the A.O has applied his mind to the issue in question, the ld. CIT cannot invoke section 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion. Relevant observation of the High Court reads as under:

"63. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymer reported in 341 ITR 537 has held as under:

"We are thus of the opinion that the provisions of s. 263 of the Act, when read as a composite whole make it incumbent upon the CIT before exercising revisional powers to : (i) call for and examine the

10

record, and (ii) give the assessee an opportunity of being heard and thereafter to make or cause to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary. It is only on fulfilment of these twin conditions that the CIT may pass an order exercising his power of revision. Minutely examined, the provisions of the section envisage that the CIT may call for the records and if he prima facie considers that any order passed therein by the AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, he may after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify. The twin requirements of the section are manifestly for a purpose. Merely because the CIT considers on examination of the record that the order has been erroneously passed so as to prejudice the interest of the Revenue will not suffice. The assessee must be called, his explanation sought for and examined by the CIT and thereafter if the CIT still feels that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, the CIT may pass revisional orders. If, on the other hand, the CIT is satisfied, after hearing the assessee, that the orders are not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, he may choose not to exercise his power of revision. This is for the reason that if a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the AO, which was answered to the satisfaction of the AO, but neither the query nor the answer were reflected in the assessment order, this would not by itself lead to the conclusion that the order of the AO called for interference and revision. In the instant case, for example, the CIT has observed in the order passed by him that the assessee has not filed certain documents on the record at the time of assessment. Assuming it to be so, in our opinion, this does not justify the conclusion arrived at by the CIT that the AO had shirked his responsibility of examining and investigating the case. More so, in view of the fact that the assessee explained that the capital investment made by the partners, which had been called into question by the CIT was duly reflected in the respective assessments of the partners Shri Kailash Khandelwal who were I.T. assessees and the unsecured loan taken from M/s Stutee Chit & Finance (P) Ltd. was duly reflected in the assessment order of the said chit fund which was also an assessee."

64. Since in the instant case the A.O after considering the various submissions made by the assessee from time to time and has taken a possible view, therefore, merely because the DIT does not agree with the opinion of the A.O, he cannot invoke the provisions of section 263 to substitute his own opinion. It has further been held in several decisions that when the A.O has made enquiry to his satisfaction and it is not a case of no enquiry and the DIT/CIT wants that the case could have been investigated/ probed in a particular manner, he cannot assume jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the assumption of jurisdiction by the DIT u/s 263 of the Act is not in accordance with law. We, therefore, quash the same and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed."

11

18. In the light of the provisions of Section 263 of the Act and the decision relied hereinabove and examining the facts of the case, we find that the ld.AO for completing the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act, dated 10.11.2016 initiated the proceedings, for the specific purpose of verification of the high value transaction, data received from the Sub- Registrar Khandagiri as per which the assessee had purchased the immovable property for a sum of Rs.48,48,000/-. Since the assessment proceedings were for this specific purpose the ld. AO called for necessary details which included various documents, bank accounts and list of persons, who gave cash sum of Rs.48,13,000/- to the assessee, which was utilized for making investment in purchase of immovable property. In the impugned order also the ld. Pr.CIT has accepted the fact that the assessee had filed various confirmation letters before the AO and accepted the same as source of investment in the immovable property. Ld. Pr.CIT also admitted the fact that most of the persons have admitted that they have given advance in cash but the date of payment was not provided. So it remains an undisputed fact that the ld. AO has raised a specific query about the source of investment to the assessee and the complete details were filed by the assessee and the ld.AO accepted the claim of the assessee regarding source of investment in the immovable property as the assessee received sale consideration from sale of land from eight different persons. List of persons as per the sale deeds as a proof of amount received from the eight different parties are as under :-

12

19. Further these facts which were available before the assessing officer during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings itself and were also placed before the Ld. Pr. CIT during proceedings u/s 263 of the Act, however, no new enquiry was conducted by Ld. Pr. CIT, in this regard at its own motion as required in the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Thus, this is a case where adequate enquiry was conducted by the assessing officer with application of mind. In our considered view, it was not open for Ld. Pr. CIT to order for a fresh enquiry, without conducting the basic enquiry at its own end to come to a conclusion that there was inadequate enquiry by the AO. For the proposition that such enquiry as deemed necessary should be conducted by the Revisionary Authority before recording the finding that the AO is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue, we rely on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Surekha Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT, ITA No.207/CTK/2018, order dated 17.07.2020, wherein the Tribunal has observed that the enquiry should have been conducted by the revisional authority himself to record the findings that the assessment order was

13

erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are as under :-

22. From a careful reading of the impugned order, we also observe that the Pr. CIT has not made any inquiries or exercise himself before alleging the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. As principle rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jyoti Foundation (supra), it is ample clear that the assessment order which had been passed after proper inquiry/investigation on the question are per se clearly treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue because the revenue authorities failed to show that further inquiry/investigation was required or further scrutiny should be undertaken. The methodology adopted by the assessee for revenue recognition was being consistently followed by the assessee during previous and subsequent assessment years and same cannot be tinkered or disturbed by placing new method of revenue recognition wherein work in progress shown by the assessee has not been taken into consideration. In such type of case, inquiry should have been conducted by the revisional authority himself to record the finding that the assessment order was erroneous.

23. In the present case, the Pr. CIT has not made inquiry himself on the submission/reply of the assessee to before exercising his power u/s.263 of the Act vide dated 23.3.2018 (APB pages 59 to 68) and relevant part as reproduced by the ld Pr. CIT in para 4 of the impugned order. He merely set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to redo the assessment denovo on the issue, which is not permissible as per principle laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Jyoti Foundation (supra) and DG Housing (supra).

24. The ld AR in his submission relied upon the views expressed in the case of DG Housing Project (supra) wherein, Their Lordships of Hon'ble Delhi High Court held thus:

"Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on the merits, the Commissioner of Income-tax has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if required and necessary, before the order under section 263 is passed. In such cases, the order of the Assessing Officer will be erroneous because the order passed is not sustainable in law and the said finding must be recorded. The Commissioner of Income-tax cannot remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide whether the findings recorded are erroneous. In cases where there is inadequate enquiry but not lack of enquiry, again the Commissioner of Income-tax must give and record a finding that the order/inquiry made is erroneous. This can happen if an enquiry and verification is conducted by the Commissioner of Income-tax and he is able to establish and

14

show the error or mistake made by the Assessing Officer, making the order unsustainable in law. In some cases possibly though rarely, the Commissioner of Income-tax can-also show and establish that the facts on record or inferences drawn from facts on record per se justified and mandated further enquiry or investigation but the Assessing Officer had erroneously not undertaken the same. However, the said finding must be clear, unambiguous and not debatable. The matter cannot be remitted for a fresh decision to the Assessing Officer to conduct further enquiries without a finding that the order is erroneous. Finding that the order is erroneous is a condition or requirement which must be satisfied for exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the matter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply and mean the Commissioner of Income-tax has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question."

25. In view of foregoing discussion, we reach to a logical conclusion that the issuance of notice u/s.263(1) of the Act and impugned revisional order u/s.263 of the Act is not sustainable and revisionary authority had no valid jurisdiction to revise the assessment order. Consequently, the impugned notice as well as revisional order u/s.263 of the Act are hereby dismissed.

20. Reliance is also placed on the decision of coordinate Indore Bench in the case of M/s. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known as R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ), ITA No.493/Ind/2018, order dated 20.07.2021, wherein the Tribunal has held as under :-

44. We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, find that detailed information was called for by the Ld. AO, specific reply submitted to each of such query by the assessee, independent enquiry conducted by the Ld. AO by issuance of notice u/s 133(6) of the Act and are satisfied that the ld. AO has conducted adequate and detailed enquiry to investigate and examine all the unsecured loan taken during the year including the loan taken from cash creditors named in the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act and find that the Ld. AO has taken one of the permissible view in law by verifying the identity of the cash creditors, got satisfied with the genuineness of the transactions between the assessee and cash creditors and also satisfied with the creditworthiness of the cash creditors. We further find that this is not a case of no enquiry or inadequate enquiry and also find that Ld. Pr. CIT had not carried out any independent enquiry at his end and thus grossly erred in observing that the order of the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The impugned order deserves to be quashed in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar

15

Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (supra), Max India Ltd (supra) and Green World Corporation (supra) and also the decision of Coordinate Bench Mumbai in the case of ITO vs. Shri Narayan Tatu Rane in ITANo.2690 & 2691/Mum/2016 dated 06.05.2016 and the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.G. Housing Projects Ltd.(supra). In the instant case Ld. Pr. CIT failed to show that both conditions exists i.e. neither it has been proved that order is erroneous nor it has been proved to be prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We thus find merit in the contentions of the assessee that the revisionary order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT in the years under appeal i.e. A.Y. 2013-14 is beyond the scope of section 263 and hence not valid. Thus the action of the Ld. Pr. CIT is contrary to the ratio laid down by binding precedence. We, therefore, quash the impugned order and decide in favour of the assessee. All the grounds raised in this appeal by the assessee are allowed and the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 07.03.2016 is restored.

21. We also observe that though the copies of sale deeds were not filed before the AO at the time of assessment proceedings, however, the details of the name of persons and the amount along with confirmations were filed and the same are true and correct vis-à-vis the copies of sale deeds placed before us. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no enquiry on the part of the AO. Even it is not a case of inadequate enquiry also as the assessment proceedings were initiated for the very basic purpose of examining the investment in immovable property and the source thereof. Prima facie, there seems to be proper application of mind by the AO and the same is further verified by the fact that all the alleged persons mentioned in the list above arte the buyers of the property sold by the assessee and the total sale consideration received from all these eight persons duly supported by registered sale deed was utilized for making investment in the immovable property.

22. We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision referred hereinabove and also observed

16

that the decision referred by the ld. DR of the Revenue are distinguishable and not applicable in the instant appeal, are of the considered view that in the instant case, the assessee has sold certain immovable property to eight persons through registered sale deed and received sum of Rs.50,78,420/-(which includes Cheque of Rs.2,65,420/- and the remaining amount in cash) and the sale consideration so received was utilized for making investment in immovable property and these details were placed before the AO in the form of list of persons and confirmation letters and after proper application of mind, he accepted the submissions of the assessee, and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was no enquiry or inadequate enquiry by the AO. We, thus, find no merit in the revisionary proceedings carried out by the ld. Pr.CIT holding the order of AO dated 10.11.2016 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and, therefore, the impugned proceedings u/s.263 of the Act are quashed. We accordingly restore the assessment order dated 10.11.2016 framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act and allow the appeal of the assessee.

23. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/10/ 2021.

Sd/- Sd/- (सी.एम.गगा) (मनिष बोरड़)

(C.M.GARG) (MANISH BORAD)

न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 28/10/2021

Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.

17

आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अगे्रपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. अऩीलाथी / The Appellant- Sangram Keshari Samantaray, Plot No.38,

Chintamaniswar Area, Bhubaneswar-751006

2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- Pr.CIT-2, Bhubaneswar

3. आयकि आयुक्त(अऩील) / The CIT(A),

4. आयकि आयुक्त / CIT

5. ववभागीय प्रनतननधध, आयकि अऩीलीय अधधकिण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack

6. गार् ा पाईल / Guard file. सत्यावऩत प्रनत //True Copy//

आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretary)

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack