9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not amount to undisclosed expenditure under Section 69C but the same was related to Sub-contract expenses for which the relevant details and the explanation was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, invocation of Section 263 of the Act which is revisionary statute cannot be exercised by PCIT as the Assessing Officer has passed just and proper assessment order by taking interest of the Revenue and thus it does not amount to erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus, appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No.60/RJT/2022 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2022 - MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by : Shri D.M. Rindani, AR Revenue by : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order u/s.143(3) could not be revised u/s 263 of the Act. 3. The assessee filed return of income on 30.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs.36,06,550/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.12.2019 assessing the income at Rs.73,43,950/- thereby making addition of Rs.37,37,400/- in respect of unexplained expenses related to sub-contract. The PCIT observed that the addition of Rs.37,37,400/- was made on account of unexplained expenditure. However, the Assessing Officer failed to satisfy Section 69C of the Act being unexplained expenditure which may attract higher tax liability as per Section 115BBE of the Act. Therefore, show cause notice dated 11.02.2022 was issued for revision under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs.37,37,400/- to the return of income. Thus, the Assessing Officer has made proper enquiries and applied his mind. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. M/s. Shreeji Prints Pvt. Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.828 of 2019) and CIT vs. RK Construction Co. (2008) 76 CCH 869. The Ld. AR further relied upon the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited (2009) 332 ITR 167. The Ld. AR further submitted that in respect of unsecured loans, the assessee has filed details pertaining to 7 depositors and the opening balance reveals that the same were received in earlier years. As regards 5 depositors the assessee furnished evidences in respect of identity, creditworthines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n taken into account after verifying the evidences produced during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer has properly adjudicated the issue and made the addition. Invocation of Section 69C of the Act does not arise in the present case as the source of the expenditure was already explained by the assessee and, therefore, it does not amount to undisclosed expenditure under Section 69C of the Act, but the same was related to Sub-contract expenses for which the relevant details and the explanation was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, invocation of Section 263 of the Act which is revisionary statute cannot be exercised by PCIT as the Assessing Officer has passed just and proper assessment order by taking interest of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
