9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the AO by the Creditors and also the Assessee respectively. A.O. not only made detail enquiry with the Assessee but also by issuing the Notice under Section 133(6) of the Act to the Creditors and after obtaining the details and convincing himself, found that the Creditors are genuine and passed the Assessment Order in-favour of the Assessee. There was no material brought by the Pr. CIT to observe that no verification was made during the course of the assessment by the A.O. On the other hand, it is seen from the record that, the Ld. A.O. has made detailed enquiry, considered all evidence and arrive to a conclusion to accepted the income declared by the Assessee. Thus, in our opinion, the Pr. CIT has only expressed the differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Adv For the Respondent by Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 29/03/2019 passed u/s 263 of the I.T Act ( Act for short) by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad, for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The grounds of Appeal are as under:- 1. That the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act in order to substitute his subjective view in place of judicious view taken by the ld. AO on the same set of facts/evidences on record, by holding that the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 19.04.2016 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustainable in law. 6. That, the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in law as well as on facts in having assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on surmise and conjecture and passed consequential order directing the ld AO to make a fresh assessment. 7. That, therefore, in view of facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act accepting the returned income filed by assessee being not erroneous and hence not prejudicial to the interests of revenue, the order passed u/s 263 of the Act directing to make a fresh assessment is without any basis, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of all the kinds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the ground that the C.A who was looking after the matter was not well therefore, he could not prefer the Appeal on time, thus the assessee has engaged the service of another counsel to prepare the Appeal, therefore, the Appeal could not be filed on time. By considering the reason assigned in the application, the delay in filing of the present appeal of 53 days is condoned. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the merit of the case, vehemently submitted that the Ld. PCIT has committed error in observing that no verification was made during the course of the assessment by the A.O . The Ld. PCIT failed to appreciate that the assessment order was passed after due enquiry and after verifying the materials produced by the assessee and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to the firms from whom the Assessee had the transactions calling upon them to produce the Balance sheet, Ledger and the ITR for the purpose of verifying the creditworthiness of the creditors. The said details were made available to the AO by the Creditors and also the Assessee respectively, which are produced by the Assessee before us by way of Paper Books, which are as under: 11. Thus, from the above it is evident that the Ld. A.O. not only made detail enquiry with the Assessee but also by issuing the Notice under Section 133(6) of the Act to the Creditors and after obtaining the details and convincing himself, found that the Creditors are genuine and passed the Assessment Order in-favour of the Assessee. 12. Further, there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 82, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 are aptly applicable in the present case as the Hon ble Apex Court wherein it is held that Section 263 has to be read in conjunction with the expression erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the assessing officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. For example, when an Income Tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
