9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the ld. Pr. CIT that the AO failed to examine sundry creditors shown by the assessee, details of other purchases, valuation of stock and various expenses as claimed in the Profit and loss account in the reassessment proceedings. DR has categorically submitted that the direction of the ld. Pr.CIT for examining the creditors and purchase accounts etc. along with valuation of stock was connected with the bogus purchases only and not de hors the same. We find this position to be amply emerging from the immediately next line in Para 6.1 of the impugned order to the effect that: Since assessee s computation of profit are dependent on all the above issues and when bogus purchases have come to his notice, it was imperative on the part of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Profit and loss account in the reassessment proceedings. The ld. Pr.CIT held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, against which the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The assessee has also raised an additional ground reading as under: "The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, has erred in passing order u/s.263 for revision of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 dated 30-05-2014 on the issues other than issues mentioned in reasons recorded in writing while re-opening the original assessment for A.Y. 2010-11. Hence the revisions order passed u/s.263 being bad in law be treated as null and void." 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amining the sundry creditors, purchase and other expenses etc. was without jurisdiction. The ld. AR relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashoka Buildcon Vs. ACIT and Another (2010) 325 ITR 574 (Bom.) in support of this contention. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that no fresh issue was directed to be examined by the ld. Pr. CIT, inasmuch as these items were concerned with the bogus purchases aspect only. 6. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, we observe that the issue in Ashoka Buildcon (supra) was about limitation in terms of section 263(2) of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held that in respect of the issues which were not the subject matter of the assessment, per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by way of exaggerated bogus purchase bills. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances, the AO held that 20% of total bogus purchases made from the alleged hawala operators was required to be added, for which he made an addition of ₹ 6,93,574/-. 8. It is pertinent to note that we are dealing with revision u/s 263 of the Act, which contemplates revision of an assessment order that is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It is trite that the power of revision does not extend to a debatable issue. In other words, if two possible views exist and the AO takes one of such possible views in the assessment order, the revision is ousted. 9. It is seen that the ld. Pr.CIT held the assessment order to be erroneous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT held the order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Tribunal affirmed the view canvassed by the CIT. The Hon'ble High Court accorded its seal of approval to the revision order. 11. We find that the facts of the case in Shoreline Hotel (supra) lie in different compass. In that case the bogus purchase bills were not that of the items relating to trading or manufacturing structure, but of the fixed assets. The logic behind the decisions upholding the addition upto a certain profit level in the bogus purchase bills is that the assessee, in fact, purchased the material, but procured the bills of higher value so as to deflate the profit. If bogus purchase bills do not relate to the purchases of goods for resale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts etc. along with valuation of stock was connected with the bogus purchases only and not de hors the same. We find this position to be amply emerging from the immediately next line in Para 6.1 of the impugned order to the effect that: "Since assessee's computation of profit are dependent on all the above issues and when bogus purchases have come to his notice, it was imperative on the part of the AO to verify all these aspects while completing the assessment." That apart, we find that the ld. Pr.CIT has not indicated anything amiss in these items independent of the issue of bogus purchases. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed on merits. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17th Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
