9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Pr.CIT was not correct in resorting to revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and therefore, we quash the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - IT(SS)A Nos.80 to 85/PUN/2019, ITA No.759/PUN/2019 - - - Dated:- 19-12-2019 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, AM And Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM For the Assessee : Shri Vipin K. Gujarathi For the Revenue : Mrs. Nandita Kanchan ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : These appeals preferred by the same assessee emanates from the respective orders of the Ld. Pr.CIT-(Central), Pune u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) all dated 18.03.2019 for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2015-16 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. The crux of the grievance of the assessee in all the years under appeal is the assumption of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the Ld. Pr.CIT. 3. Both the parties agreed that the facts and circumstances are similar in respect of each of the assessment years. These cases were therefore, heard together ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer disallowing only 2% of gold purchases from Unregistered Dealers in cash is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The assessee filed written submissions with regard to the show cause notice. However, the Ld. Pr.CIT went on to pass 263 order on 18.03.2019 specifically on the ground that there has been a complete lack of application of mind and incorrect assumption of facts by the Assessing Officer and that 2% disallowed out of total URD purchases in cash were therefore, an order which was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that it is definitely not a case of in-application of mind or incorrect assumption of facts by the Assessing Officer, since the Assessing Officer had made detailed specific enquiries and issued show cause notice to the assessee. The chronology of events and the supporting documents filed before us in Paper Book are as follows: Sr No Date of Notice and dated of Reply submitted by the appellant Paper Book Page No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er were unserved or did not attend. Out of 43 summons 19 were served and 4 persons attended the summons 7 21st December 2016 Page No 18 to 29 (Page No 27 to 28) of Paper Book for AY 2015-16 Reply submitted by the appellant for verification of URD purchases giving the details of month wise URD purchases made (in grams) along with the Annexure from Tax Audit Report showing Opening Stock, Purchases made, Sales made and Closing Stock in Quantity. 8 21st December 2016 Page No 18 to 29 (Page No 27 to 28) of Paper Book for AY 2015-16 Reply submitted by the appellant providing detailed chart showing the name, address, date of purchase, weight, amount paid, purchase and selling rates and the details of purchases against the sale of gold. 9 23rd December 2016 Page No 39 to 39 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed the assessment order after conducting reasonable enquiries and therefore, in that case the Tribunal has held that the Ld. Pr.CIT has exceeded his jurisdiction in invoking revisional powers. The Ld. AR of the assessee further contended that it is not case that the entire relief has been granted by the Assessing Officer to the assessee rather he has disallowed 2% of URD purchases. Therefore, the newly inserted Explanation 2 to clause (b) of section 263 of the Act is not applicable to the case of assessee. More, so because this Explanation 2 was inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 i.e. A.Y. 2016-17, whereas in the present set of appeals of the assessee it is from A.Y. 2009-10 to 2015-16. The Ld. AR of the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. in ITA No.296 of 2013 reported in (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom), wherein the Hon ble High Court had observed and opined that the Tribunal recorded the fact that specific enquiries were made during assessment proceedings with regard to the details of expenditure claimed under the head Miscellaneous Expenses aggregating to ₹ 2.94 crores. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the preceding paragraphs. The facts also reveals that 43 summons were issued by the Assessing Officer of which 19 summons were duly served to the concerned persons and out of those 19, 4 persons attended the hearing. The Assessing Officer after conducting these specific enquiries into the matter had disallowed 2% of such URD purchases. Therefore, these trail of events are complete evidence of the fact that it is not case of in-application of mind by the Assessing Officer nor also there is incorrect assumption of facts by the Assessing Officer. That on similar facts and circumstances, Pune Tribunal in ITA Nos.684 to 690/PUN/2019 (supra) had observed that the assumption of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the Pr.CIT is not warranted as per law in the case of the assessee. We further observed that Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act has been effective from 01.06.2015 relating to A.Y. 2016-17, whereas the assessee s case is for A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2015-16. That further clause (b) of such Explanation talks of entire relief or full relief, whereas in this case of assessee it is not case of full relief but 2% has been disallowed on URD purchases. There is also no retrosp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
