9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned. The power of revision of orders passed by the AO under S. 263 of the Act is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction which is permissible to be exercised only when the twin conditions are satisfied that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and further on account of order being erroneous, prejudice has been caused to the interest of revenue. In the instant case, while recording the conclusion that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, apparently the record of the assessment proceedings was not examined by the Principal CIT in its entirety and objectivity. In relation to purchases from agriculturists due evidence was submitted which cannot be rebutted and that purchases are made f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he interest of revenue and has erred in setting the said order. 3. The order u/s. 263 is vague and without proper jurisdiction and there is no conclusion that the original assessment made was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue and just for re examination of the issues such order could not have been set aside. 4. The original assessment was completed after detailed scrutiny and setting aside such order for the purpose of verification of certain claims is bad in law and bad on facts. There is no firm conclusion that there is any income which had not been correctly assessed. 5. The ld. CIT, Bikaner had erred in observing that the purchases made from Satya Narayan is not properly verifiable from Krishi Mandi and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 21.9.2012. The said case was selected under CASS and notice was issued u/s. 143(2) on 21.8.2013, and thereafter assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 5.6.2014. 3. The ld. PCIT was of the view that the said order passed u/s. 143(3) on 5.6.2014 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and accordingly notice was issued on 18.11.2016 on various issues. The first issue raised was on account of certain purchases made from Satyanarayan certain payments of ₹ 4 lakhs and ₹ 2.90 lakhs was made in cash. For this the assessee had produced the receipts issued by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti according to which the gwar were sold on 20.1.2012 for ₹ 14,80,626/-. The sales made on credit and sale made for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted during the assessment proceedings and was submitted during the proceedings under 263. As regards payment to Mahaveer Prasad Mistri and two other helpers this was payment to three persons and the payment was not in violation of Section 40A(3). 5. The next issue was with regard to the Share Capital of ₹ 4,50,000/- issued to Deepak Bhatia, which was not verified during the course of assessment. The money was taken from the company and deposited as share capital. No proper enquiry was being made in this regard. The contention of the assessee had been that during the assessment proceedings the assessee vide letter dated 18.2.2014 had submitted details, affidavit, bank pass book and income tax returns, PAN Card of Deepak Bhatia. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quality which had resulted into some shortages. This plea after examination was accepted during the course of assessment proceedings. 8. The next objection of the PCIT is that verification of transaction with related parties was not done. As regards transactions with related party the details were submitted and confirmation of account was submitted. 9. In relation to the next issue relating to discount this was also discussed during the assessment proceedings. The amount of discount was 0.82% in the current year as against 1.10% in the last year. Against various other expenses part disallowance was also made by the AO in the assessment order. 10. As regards other expenses also due explanation was submitted and it is contended that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Krishi Mandi. Similarly the share capital contribution from the existing shareholder and other contribution of share capital are duly accepted from the same shareholder. The purchases had increased, the turnover had increased, in such volume the creditors are bound to increase. The main creditor was a related party for which confirmation of account was submitted and nothing has been pointed out in relation to the said confirmation. Simply because the quantum had increased this cannot be any basis to submit the same is erroneously accepted. In relation to various other expenses also due reply had been submitted. In light of above discussion we hold that the order u/s. 263 cannot be sustained as we find that the assessment order passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
