9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d issue. Merely because, Ld. Pr.CIT did not agree with the aforesaid estimation, the same could not be sole ground to invoke revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 particularly when there is due application of mind to the issue by Ld. AO. Once a possible view has been taken by Ld. AO, the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 would not be valid. Merely because the inquiries were not done in a particular manner, the same would not make assessment order expose to revisional jurisdiction u/s 263.- Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.2308/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2021 - Hon ble Shri Mahavir Singh, VP And Hon ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, AM For the Assessee : Shri Suchek Anchaliya-Ld. AR For the Revenue : Shri S.C.Tiwari- Ld. CIT DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made addition on adhoc basis @3% of the alleged bogus purchases without any justification and reason which is factually incorrect in as much as the learned AO in his order vide para 8.8 on page 10 has, discussed and stated the reasons why he was adopting 3% addition. 6. The learned CIT erred in ignoring various judicial pronouncements especially of the jurisdictional Hon. ITAT, Mumbai on this issue. 2. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record including submissions made by assessee during assessment proceedings as well as during revisional proceedings. The judicial precedents as cited during the course of hearing have duly been deliberated upon. Our adjudication to the subject matter of appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon perusal of case records and invoking the provisions of Sec.263 opined that the order was passed without making proper enquiry on certain points and therefore the same would require exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263. It was opined by Ld. Pr.CIT that Ld. AO wrongly estimated the additions @3% without any justification. The Ld. AO did not carry out sufficient investigation, movement of stock as well as quantitative details were not verified. Hence, the order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue which would require invocation of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263. 4.2 Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee on 02/08/2017. The assessee defended the assessment order, inter-alia, by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty were correlated with the sales made by the assessee. 6. After considering all these evidences as well as submissions, Ld. AO estimated an addition against the same @3%. It is notable that the sales were not doubted and there could be no sale without actual purchase of material. Therefore, there was no option but to estimate the additions to account for unaccounted profit which may have generated by the assessee in these suspicious transactions. The action of Ld. AO in estimating the addition could not be said to be arbitrary or perverse, in any manner. There was due application of mind by Ld. AO on the stated issue. Merely because, Ld. Pr.CIT did not agree with the aforesaid estimation, the same could not be sole ground to invoke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
