9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee was initially unaware that section 263 order can be appealed before the ITAT and, hence, has filed this present appeal with a delay. The ld. AR prayed for condoning the said delay. The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue opposed for condoning the delay. 3. Having heard both the sides, we deem it fit to condone the delay in filing the present appeal in order to give the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Hence, delay is hereby condoned. 4. The assessee challenged this appeal on the ground that the ld. PCIT has reviewed the order u/s. 263 for the second time as the first order u/s. 263 of the Act was already passed on 27.03.2019. The assessee has raised the ground that the ld. PCIT h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s. 142(1) of the Act except for the notice dated 25.12.2019 which is prior to the assessment being time barred on 31.12.2019. The A.O. passed the assessment order dated 31.12.2019 by rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee and profit of 8% amounting to Rs. 4,32,07,946/- towards the business turnover of Rs. 54,99,00,329/- was estimated and an addition of Rs. 3,03,78,320/- was made after deducting the declared income of the assessee on the ground that the details furnished by the assessee in the last hour was not verifiable from the third party and, hence, the impugned addition was made. 7. The ld. PCIT had again invoked the provision of section 263 of the Act by issuing notice dated 11.03.2022 for the reason of certain discrepancy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2109 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 8. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. PCIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act. 9. The ld. AR for the assessee contended that this issue of investment made by the assessee was before the A.O. in the earlier assessment proceeding where the A.O.'s order dated 31.12.2019 was passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. The ld. AR further stated that the assessee has furnished all the details pertaining to the impugned investment, whereas the same was not considered by the A.O. during the assessment proceeding and the A.O. has erroneously stated that the assessee has not filed any details neither bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest of the Revenue. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. PCIT. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is evident that there has been two section 263 proceedings carried out in the case of the assessee where in the first section 263 proceeding there were about five issues raised by the ld. PCIT and the A.O. vide order dated 31.12.2019 has made various additions/disallowances. Though the issue of source of investment of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- in unlisted equities was part of the proceeding, no enquiry is said to have been made on this issue and thereby no addition to this extent was made. On perusal of the records, we do not find any documentary evidences furnished by the assessee in suppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
