9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the ld. PCIT was duly justified in invoking his revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by cancelling the reassessment framed by the ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. - ITA No. 16/DDN/2021 - - - Dated:- 8-6-2023 - Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member And Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate And Ms Deepashri Rao, CA For the Revenue : Shri N.S. Jangpangi, CIT, DR ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH, AM: This appeal in ITA No.16/DDN/2021 for AY 2009-10 arises out of the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun, [hereinafter referred to as ld. PCIT , in short] in DIN Order No. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2020- 21/1031815348(1) dated 27.03.2021 against the order of assessment passed u/s 148/147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) dated 26th/28th December, 2018 by the ld. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO ). 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. PCIT was justified in invoking revisiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from M/s Meet Enterprises, despite the fact that the issue in reassessment proceedings was restricted only to alleged bogus payments made to the said party. 2.2. That the PCIT failed to appreciate that the issue of disallowance of alleged bogus purchases from M/s Meet Enterprises was, in any case, extensively examined during the course of original as well as reassessment proceedings and the same was, therefore, outside the scope of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 2.3. That the PCIT failed to appreciate that the issue of alleged bogus purchases made from M/s Meet Enterprises having being settled under the YsV was amenable to immunity and consequently, fell outside the scope of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 2.4. That the PCIT erred in setting aside the reassessment order on aforesaid issue on vague/ general ground, without pointing out the error, much less prejudice, in the reassessment order. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend or vary the above grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons recorded specifically stated that the entire purchases made from M/s Meet Enterprises were bogus in the sum of Rs 1,06,80,540/- by the assessee and out of this, a sum of Rs 73,45,040/- has been paid by the assessee during the year. Since the said party was found to be non-existent, the ld. AO concluded that the purchases made from the said party to be a mere accommodation entry. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the ld. AO made following enquiries with the assessee by seeking the following details :- 1. Kindly refer to your reply dated 23.08.2018 in response to notice under section 142(1) of the I.Tax Act, 1961, you are hereby required to submit your sale tax return for the F.Y. 2008-09, copies of road permit and Bahati Form for the item claimed to be purchased from Meet enterprises. 2. Kindly furnish the detail of final order of VAT/Sale Tax, detail of penalty imposed by the Department, and detail of payment of the same. Kindly also furnish the current status of the same, along with documentary evidence. 3. From the sale tax return of Meet enterprises, is reveals that no such sale has been made by them, as claimed by you that you have purchase f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings completed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated 26.12.2018. 7. This reassessment dated 26.12.2018 was sought to be revised by the ld. PCIT by invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that the ld. AO ought to have disallowed the entire purchases from M/s Meet Enterprises amounting to Rs 1,06,80,540/- and since only Rs 73,45,040/- was disallowed by the ld. AO in the reassessment proceedings, the order of reassessment became erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessee submitted that the demand raised in the re-assessment proceedings dated 26.12.2018 was settled by her by availing the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and the dispute was settled thereon. In support thereon, the assessee submitted Form 3 dated 23.02.2021 issued by the ld. PCIT, Dehradun (being the designated authority) and thereafter the taxes due thereon were paid by the assessee. Accordingly, Form No.5 was also issued by the ld. PCIT , Dehradun on 09.04.2021. 8. The ld. PCIT observed that the assessee had settled the dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas (VSV) Scheme only against the disallowance of purchases from M/s Meet Enterprises only for Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the ld. AO in his assessment. This error had also caused prejudice to the interest of the revenue. We find that even the reasons recorded by the ld. AO clearly states that the assessee had made bogus purchases to the tune of Rs 1,06,80,540/- from M/s Meet Enterprises. Hence there is nothing wrong in ld. PCIT invoking his revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and directing the ld. AO to reconsider the remaining sum of Rs 33,35,500/- in accordance with law. We are also in agreement with the ld. PCIT and the argument advanced by the ld.DR before us that the dispute settled under VSV scheme is only for Rs 73,45,040/- which is partial and not the entire issue of purchases of Rs 1,06,80,540/-. In our considered opinion, though the assessee had sought to settle the dispute arising out of reassessment order under VSV scheme, it would be limited only to the extent of disallowance / addition made in the said reassessment . The assessee is not given any blanket immunity so as to prevent the revenue from looking into other matters relating to such assessment year. 10. In view of the aforesaid observations, we hold that the ld. PCIT was duly justified in invoking his revisionary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
