9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoking of jurisdiction under section 263 by PCIT, we are of considered view that the PCIT has over stepped while exercising his revisional powers - AO has passed the order by estimating GP after examining the documents on record and considering various judicial pronouncements - AO has taken one of the possible views by making reasonable assumption that the assessee might have procured the goods from grey market. This assumption has been accepted by the Tribunal in various decisions where the revenue has accepted the sales/ turnover corresponding to alleged bogus purchases. The Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [ 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] in an unambiguous manner has held that where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views to which CIT does not agree, this would not make the assessment order erroneous. In the instant case the assessment order may be prejudicial to the interest of revenue but it cannot be said to be erroneous. Since, both the conditions to trigger Sec 263 are not satisfied, the PCIT has erred in invoking his revisional power. - Decided in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. According to PCIT the entire amount of alleged accommodation entries should have been brought to tax. The PCIT set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to carry out inquiries and make fresh assessment. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee. 2.1 The AR submitted that the assessment for Assessment Year 2011-12 was reopened on the basis of information received from investigation Wing regarding assessee's alleged involvement in obtaining accommodation entries from Bhanwarlal Jain group. It was alleged that the assessee had obtained accommodation entries to the tune of ₹18,08,24,885/-. The learned AR referred to the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment under section 147 at page 41 and 42 of the paper book. The learned AR submitted that once the assessment has been reopened and the investigation has been conducted by the Assessing Officer and on the basis of such investigation Assessing Officer framed the assessment order, the PCIT cannot invoke jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act on the' ground that proper enquiries were not made by the Assessing Officer. Merely for the reason that the PCIT does not agree with the findings of Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d have examined the orders of the authorities below. We have also considered the decisions on which reliance has been placed by ld. AR. The assessment in the case of assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12 was reopened on the basis of information received by Investigation Wing after search on Bhanwarlal Jain group. As per the information, the assessee has obtained accommodation entries from the said group. A perusal of the assessment order passed under section 147 of the Act, reveal that the Assessing Officer after examining the documents on record came to the conclusion that the assessee has obtained accommodation entries. Since, the sales declared by the assessee were accepted by the Department, the Assessing Officer estimated GP at the rate of 12.5% on the said accommodation entries to bring to tax profit embedded in such bogus transactions. 5. The PCIT invoked revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act as he did not concur with the view of Assessing Officer in estimating GP on alleged accommodation entries. The PCIT further rejected the view of Assessing Officer in assuming that the assessee had made purchases from grey market. 6. The provisions of section 263 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessee might have procured the goods from grey market. This assumption has been accepted by the Tribunal in various decisions where the revenue has accepted the sales/ turnover corresponding to alleged bogus purchases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) in an unambiguous manner has held that where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views to which CIT does not agree, this would not make the assessment order erroneous. The relevant extract of the judgement by the Hon'ble Apex Court is as under: "9. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when an ITO adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
