9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessee. The PCIT must be satisfied, after application of his mind, that the order of the AO was erroneous with respect to the material made available to him. No such application of mind by the PCIT is evident from the impugned order which was under challenge before the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises - ITA No. 637/2017, ITA No. 507/2017, ITA No. 508/2017, ITA No. 509/2017 - - - Dated:- 21-8-2017 - S. Muralidhar And Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Mr. P. C. Yadav, Advocate ORDER C.M. No. 29289/2017 (exemption) in ITA No. 637/2017 C.M. No. 24212/2017 (exemption) in ITA No. 508/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions undertaken by the Assessee. These were in the nature of loans advanced by certain companies by way of a common agreement during the AY to the Assessee. The case of the Revenue was that the Assessee had paid interest higher than the rate as recorded in its accounts. It was also not able to explain the amount repaid to its sundry creditors. 7. A notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the Assessee on 22nd October 2012. Pursuant thereto, the Assessee stated by way of its letter dated 19th November 2012 that the original return filed by it under Section 139 of the Act should be treated as the return filed in response to the above notice. 8. During the course of the assessment proceedings, Show Cause Notices ( SCN ) were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st payment @ 40% p.a. 10. It is, therefore, clear that the AO had second thoughts on the aspect of payment of interest by the Assessee. He then states that, The addition of the differential amount of interest paid could not be made due to oversight/heavy workload. I deeply regret for the error. The copies of DDIT(Inv.) letter, show cause notice issued, and reply filed by the Assessee are also enclosed for your kind perusal. 11. This triggered the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act by the PCIT. The PCIT did not independently form an opinion about the order of the AO being erroneous. On this basis, nearly two years thereafter, on 2nd February 2015, the PCIT issued an SCN to the Assessee virtually setting out the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned that, from the facts that have emerged, if so-called incriminating material was found during the course of the search in the case of K.S. Dhingra G.S. Dhingra Group, the assessment proceeding ought to have been initiated against the Assessee under Section 153C of the Act. The Assessee of course did not question this because the assessment order ultimately was not adverse to the Assessee. The AO had a full-fledged opportunity to undertake a detailed enquiry, and having not done so on account of paucity of time, there cannot be any inference that the inadequate inquiry led to the AO to arrive at incorrect facts. 15. Reliance is also placed by Mr. Rahul Chaudhary on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v Amitabh Bachhan [2016] 384 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
