9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s recorded for reopening wherein the assessee contented that Rental of plant machinery and building by M/s Pinkcity Colorstones Pvt. Ltd. was to its DTA Unit, i.e., Mahapura Unit and not to Sitapura SEZ Unit. Even the SEZ Rules do not permit to take Building / Plant Machinery on rent, without prior permission of the Development Commissioner and no such permission was taken. No statement by any Director or Employee that plant machinery and building have been given on rent by M/s Pinkcity Colorstones Pvt. Ltd. to Sitapura SEZ Unit. SEZ unit has constructed its own Building and purchased Plant Machinery. M/s Pinkcity Colorstones Pvt. Ltd. has not sold any plant machinery to Sitapura SEZ Unit. M/s Pinkcity Colorstones Pvt. Ltd. was not having strong profits but on the contrary was incurring regular losses. Employees of M/s Pinkcity Colorstones Pvt. Ltd. were absorbed by its DTA Unit, i.e., Mahapura Unit and not by Sitapura SEZ Unit. There is no bar that deduction u/s. 10AA will not be permitted if the management of two companies is similar. Items were not transferred from its Mahapura Unit to Sitapura SEZ unit, even otherwise, some raw-materials (gemstones) were sold which were used fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uiries regarding eligibility allowability of the deductions u/s. 10AA of the IT Act, 1961 which is wholly unjustified, bad in law and deserve to be quashed. 1.2. That the Id. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax failed to appreciate that the Id. Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order after appreciating all supporting documents and evidences and past history of the assessee and therefore the assessment order passed by the Id. Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 1.3. That the Id. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax grossly erred in ignoring the detailed submissions made by the assessee in response to notice u/s. 263 and in passing the impugned order on assumptions, presumptions, conjectures and surmises which is bad in law. 1.4. That the Id. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax grossly erred in ignoring that the assessee's appeal was pending with Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on account of additions made by the Id. Assessing Officer, thus the initiation of proceedings is wholly barred beyond jurisdiction. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend any ground on or before the date of hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05.08.2016 at total income of Rs. 4,68,02,540/-. 6.1 A survey u/s. 133A of the Income-tax Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 17th 18th August, 2017. During the course of survey proceedings, it was gathered that another group concern of the assessee i.e. M/s. Pinkcity Colorstone Pvt. Ltd. was having strong profits but later on the same was closed and the Plant and Machinery as well as building was rented over to the assessed company i.e. M/s. Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. The management and shareholders of both the companies were/are same. This arrangement has been done for only motive to avoid legitimate taxes. Accordingly, the case was reopened u/s. 147/148 after recording reasons and getting necessary approval of the Addl.CIT, Range-2, Jaipur. 6.2 A notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee on 29/12/2017, which was duly served upon the assessee through e-file portal as well as through personal service on same day by the notice server. The assessee made no compliance as per the time provided in the notice for furnishing of return of income. The assessee filed his income tax return on 31/03/2018 declaring income of Rs. 4,68,02,540/- . The assessee thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cessary inquiries regarding eligibility allowability of the deduction u/s 10AA of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, a Show Cause Notice u/s 263 dated 12.03.2021 was issued and hearing fixed on 15.03.2021. In reply of the above Show Cause Notice u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 the AR of the Assessee submitted his written submission on 15.03.2021. The ld. PCIT based on the written submission held that ; I have examined the facts at hand. I have studied the reply of the assessee. From the matrix of facts and events, it is noted that the case was reopened under section 148 based upon information gathered specifically in a survey carried out under section 133A, whereby it was found that the assessee is not eligible for claiming, and being granted, benefit under section 10AA of the Income Tax Act 1961. In the assessment order dated 17.12.2018, pursuant to this reopening, it is noted that the Assessing Officer has not given any finding with regard to this specific state of affairs, whether the assessee is eligible for benefit of exemption under section 10AA or not?. This lack of inquiry and consequent non-deriving of inference by the Assessing Officer, has prima facie caused prejudice to the inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r assessment year 2011-2012 was initiated and assessed. Benefit of deduction u/s.10AA was granted. 6. That during the year under consideration assessee appellant had filed its income tax return on 30.11.2015 at Rs 4,68,02,540/- PB-I, Pg. 165-202. 7. That survey proceeding u/s 133A of the Act was carried out against the assessee appellant on 17-18.08.2017 and in consequence, reassessment proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act was initiated for the Assessment Years 2012- 2013 to 2015-2016. That scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act for assessment year 2016-2017 2017-2018 was also initiated. 8. That in the reasons recorded for initiating reassessment proceedings initiated for the Assessment Years 2012-2013 to 2015-2016 it was alleged that assessee is transferring semi-finished goods from the Mahapura Unit (DTA unit) to SEZ unit and that SEZ unit did not make any addition on the goods, ratio of expenses incurred at DTA unit is more than SEZ Unit, etc. That disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer as per reasons recorded for initiating 148 proceedings. The assessment/re-assessment proceeding were decided vide assessment orders dated 17/19.12.2018 passed for A.Y. 2012-2013 to 2016- 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vey are as under: Assessment Year Issue under Scrutiny Particulars Paper Book Detail 2010-2011 AO: 28.03.13 Claiming Deduction U/s 10AA Income Accepted SCN: 36-37 [PBI] Reply: 38-41 [PBI] Order: 42-43 [PBI] 2011-2012 AO: 07.03.14 Claiming Deduction U/s 10AA Income Accepted Order: 44-45 [PBI] 2011-2012 (Reassessment) AO: 18.12.17 Bogus Purchase Deduction u/s 10AA is allowed. Addition made on account of Bogus Purchase Order: 203-217 [PBII] 2012-2013 AO: 27.03.15 Bogus Purchase Deduction u/s 10AA is allowed. Addition made on account of Bogus Purchase and ESI/PF Order: 46-57 [PBI] 2012-2013 (Reassessment) AO: 17.12.18 Claiming Deduction U/s 10AA Deduction allowed by dividing expenses at proportionate basis SCN: 218-221 [PBII] Reply: 222-225 [PBII] Order: 58-73 [PBI] 2013-2014 AO: 21.03.16 Bogus Purchase Deduction u/s 10AA is allowed. Addition made on account of Bogus Purchase and ESI/PF Order: 74-89 [PBI] 2013-2014 (Reassessment) AO: 17.12.18 Claiming Deduction U/s 10AA Deduction allowed by dividing expenses at proportionate basis SCN: 226-239 [PBII] Reply: 240-243 [PBII] Order: 90-106 [PBI] 2014-2015 AO: 25.11.16 Bogus Purchase Deduction u/s 10AA is allowed. Addition made on account o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom SEZ Unit. SEZ Unit did not make any value addition on the same. there was no casting facility at Sitapura Unit and the finished goods were transferred from Mahapura Unit. Claim of exemption is barred as per section 10AA(iv)(iii) of the Act. 14. That the assessee appellant filed detailed reply dated 15.03.2021 [PBI, Pg. 15-19] and objected to the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act and highlighted that: the issue was considered in detail in the regular assessment, reassessments from the A.Y. 2010-2011 to 2017-2018. entire basis for issuing notice u/s. 263 is factually wrong, all issues relevant for scrutiny assessment have been considered by the Assessing Officer and all relevant enquiries were carried out. Rental of plant machinery and building by M/s Pinkcity Colorstones Pvt. Ltd. was to its DTA Unit, i.e., Mahapura Unit and not to Sitapura SEZ Unit. SEZ Rules do not permit to take Building / Plant Machinery on rent, without prior permission of the Development Commissioner and no such permission was taken. No statement by any Director or Employee that plant machinery and building have been given on rent by M/s Pinkcity Colorstones Pvt. Ltd. to Sitapura SEZ Unit. SEZ un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant provisions of section 10AA(4)(iii) of the Act are reproduced as follows: (4) This section applies to any undertaking, being the Unit, which fulfils all the following conditions, namely: (i) .. (ii) .. (iii) it is not formed by the transfer to a new business, of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose . 16. That the ld. PCIT failed to appreciate and consider that the assessee appellant s SEZ Unit at Sitapura Industrial Area started manufacturing activity from the financial year 2009-10 pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11 and that the SEZ Unit has neither purchased nor taken on lease any Plant Machinery from Pinkcity Colorstones Pvt. Ltd. The fact of Plant Machinery taken on rent by its Mahapura Unit which is a DTA unit has been mixed up with the SEZ unit. 17. That the ld. PCIT failed to appreciate and consider that the Plant Machinery was purchased by Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. Mahapura Unit that too last time in the financial year 2012-13 PB-II, Pg. 262 and Mahapura Unit does not claim any deduction u/s 10AA of the Act and therefore provisions of section 10AA(4)(iii) are wrongly invoked. 18. That the observation that Semi Finished Goods were transferred from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-2016. Neither for A.Y. 2010-11 nor for 2011-12, nor for 2012-13, nor for 2013-14, nor for 2014-15, nor for 2016-17 nor for 2017-18. It may be noted that survey was carried out on 17-18.08.2017 and thereafter the assessment / reassessment orders for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 2017-18 were passed on 17/18.12.2018 30.12.2019. In the assessment orders passed for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 2017-18 statements other facts recorded at the time of survey are also referred in detail and thereafter the benefit of exemption u/s. 10AA has been granted. 23. That it is trite that the exercise of power u/s. 263 of the Act is ousted in case of a debatable issue . An assessment order can be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, if the Assessing Officer has taken a view which is not legally tenable. Per contra, if two views are available on a particular issue and the AO adopts one of such views, the case goes outside the purview of revisional power exercisable by the PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act. Proceedings u/s. 263 cannot be sustained where the ld. CIT holds a view which was different from that of the Assessing Officer. Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the CIT did not agree with, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue because the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. 26. Thus, ld. AO has examined that issue as it is evident form the finding recorded in the assessment order. The ld. PCIT evidently did not place on record any apparent error on the part of the AO so as to substantiate that order passed by the ld. AO is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. He only mentioned that the AO has not applied his mind to the issue in proper manner. He has not pin pointed any of the enquiry which is required to be made is not made by the ld. AO and he has to examine the issue on merits. Since, in this case ld. AO has clearly conducted the enquiry and revenue did not pin point the error on the part of the assessing officer the order passed after due application of mind cannot be subjected to proceeding u/s. 263 of the Act. The ITAT Mumbai bench in the case of Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy has addressed this issue elaborately. 27. The AO while framing the assessment had taken a possible view, and revenue did not demo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder and it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is totally unsustainable in law. We draw strength from case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and also from the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). 28. Further it is settled law that initiation of 263 proceedings at the instance of Revenue Audit is impermissible . Reliance is placed upon: Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in CIT v. Sohana Woolen Mills (2006) 9 TMI 157 [Compilation 1-3] has held: A reference to the provisions of section 263 of the Act shows that jurisdiction thereunder can be exercised if the Commissioner of Income-tax finds that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Mere audit objection and because a different view could be taken, are not enough to say that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The jurisdiction could be exercised if the Commissioner of Income-tax was satisfied that the basis for exercise of jurisdiction existed. No rigid rule could be laid down about the situation when the jurisdiction can be ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the audit objection. Therefore, subsequently on mere audit objection, the Ld. Principal CIT, was not justified in initiating the proceedings u/s.263of the I.T. Act. The Principal CIT was, therefore, not justified in holding that Assessing officer did not make necessary enquiry into the matter. The Ld. Principal CIT merely disagree with the findings of the Assessing officer, therefore, it could not be termed as assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Therefore, we do not subscribe to the view of the Principal CIT in exercising jurisdiction u/s.263 - Decided in favour of assessee . Hon ble ITAT Chennai Bench in Refex Industries Ltd. v. DCIT (2014) 11 TMI 653 [Compilation 29-34] has held: Rather, CIT without independent application of mind has replicated audit objections in the show cause notice issued u/s.263 - In SHRI JASWINDER SINGH Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II [2012 (6) TMI 543 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] it has been held that exercise of revisional power on the basis of audit objection is not tenable in law thus, the CIT without examining the records and proper application of mind has invoked the provisions of section 263 in disallowing the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation considering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It is evident from the show cause notice that the ld. PCIT initiated revisionary proceedings just on the basis of the AO s report without carrying out any independent examination of the record followed by independently satisfying himself that the assessment order required revision. Thus we are satisfied that the ld. PCIT exercised his jurisdiction to initiate the revision proceedings in a wrongful manner, which, ergo, cannot be accorded our imprimatur. Assessee created the bedrock for challenging the revision through the additional ground, on the basis of the show cause notice issued by the ld. PCIT, which is part of the assessee s paper book. Our decision of quashing the revision on this legal issue is based on such show cause notice - The additional ground raises a pure question of law, for which no fresh investigation of facts is required. That is raison d etre for our admitting the additional ground and then espousing it for consideration. It is, therefore, ultimately held that the ld. Pr. CIT was not justified in invoking the revision jurisdiction. Decided in favour of asses Hon b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 of the Act on the basis of such a proposal, we hold that it became a case of jurisdiction deficit resulting into vitiating the impugned order. 30. While invoking provisions of section 263 in the instant case, the rules of consistency has been given a complete bypass which is impermissible . Reliance is placed upon: Hon ble Supreme Court in Radha Soami Satsang v. CIT (1991) 11 TMI 2 [Compilation 35-41] has observed: We are aware of the fact that, strictly speaking, res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year . On these reasonings, in the absence of any material change justifying the Revenue to take a different view of the matter and, if there was no change, it was in support of the assessee-we do not think the question should have been reopened and contrary to what ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer on the pretext of which adjournment has been sought from 31.10.2023 has not provided to the assessee appellant. We thus humbly submits that the impugned order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the ld. PCIT is completely illegal, devoid of any merits, passed with predetermined motive, on the basis of assumption and presumption, ignoring the correct factual position, on wrong understanding of statutory provision, is bad in law and therefore the same is deserves to be quashed set-aside. 8. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was also placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: SNo. Particulars Page No. From To 263 INITIATED AT THE INSTANCE OF AUDIT 1. CIT v. Sohana Wollen Mills {2006 (9) TMI 157} Punjab Haryana High Court 01 03 2. Rajinder Kaur v. ITO {2023 (4) TMI 565} ITAT Amritsar 04 13 3. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT {2023 (08) TMI 673} ITAT - New Delhi 14 17 4. Paramjit Singh v. PCIT {2016 (12) TMI 799} ITAT -Chandigarh 18 28 5. Refex Industries Ltd. v. DCIT {2014 (11) TMI 653} ITAT -Chennai 29 34 RULE OF CONSISTENCY Radha Soami Satsang v. CIT {1991 (11) TMI 2} Supreme Court 35 41 SCOPE OF REVISION U/S. 263 7. CIT v. Manna T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by him and reproduce here in above. The assessee has replied all the queries that has been raised by the assessing officer for all these years which are re-opened by the assessing officer. There is no proceeding of 148 or 263 in other years but only in this year the order has been passed u/s. 263 of the Act based on the audit objection filed at page 267 of the paper book filed by the assessee which is based on the audit objection raised by the ACIT,(Audit) Jaipur suggesting the remedial action wherein the audit party has relied on the para 2 of the reply filed by the assessee and the same is even relied upon by the ld. DR. This is nothing but the rebuttal of the assessee and not admission as alleged by the audit party and the ld. DR. Thus, considering the various judicial precedent cited the ld. PCIT cannot invoke the provision of 263 merely on the audit objection. The ld. AR of the assessee reading para 9 of the order of the PCIT argued that the even the PCIT has not given his finding and he merely suggested that there is lack of enquiry and non deriving of inference in the order. Even he has not invoked explanation 2 of the section 263 and thus the order passed is just based on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrangement avoid legitimate taxes. It has alleged that the items transferred from Mahapura Unit remained the same and no value addition was made at Sitapura Unit. As disclosed during the survey proceedings as well as during the course of assessment proceedings the Sitapura Unit had no casting unit till July Aug, 2012, but this do not mean that no manufacturing activity was carried out at Sitapura. In fact the items transferred from Mahapura Unit were only the first stage of the jewellery production and was actually a rough design of the jewellery carted which required several other process to be undergone before the items of jewellery becomes finished good to be exported. The observation that items remained the same as SEZ Unit did not make any value addition on the same is not correct. In his statement recorded during survey Shri Hanuman Sharma clearly mentioned the various process of production undertaken at SEZ Unit to make the items received from Mahapura Unit as saleable/exportable finished goods. The value to the jewellery is always added with every step of manufacturing and reaches its ultimate value after the stone is studded and the item is finally polished. Thus the very ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut on the basis of bifurcation of expenses in the ratio of turnover of both the units as also allowed for as per the proviso to section 80IA(8) r.w.s. 10AA(9) the Assessing Officer may compute such profits and gains on such reasonable basis as he may deem fit, as already reproduced above. The assessee through the note sheet entry dated 04.12.2018 again informed that the submission made on even date are not sustainable but assessee required no further submission, accordingly, the assessment is completed as per the provisions of section 10AA(9) r.w.s. 80IA(8). 3.18 In the case of the assessee company, it has one existing unit in Mahapura for years in the manufacturing of Gems Jewellery; the assessee put another unit in same manufacturing activity in SEZ, Sitapura which enjoy deduction u/s.10AA of the Act. It got benefited by the technologies, brands of the company, access to the market by existing buyers, brand value and other expert abilities of the management and directors. It has not made any expenditure on goodwill, advertisements, selling marketing as the company by its Mahapura unit has Brand name and existing buyers from years. The role of directors and management of the compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t: X X X X 3.21 Therefore, Rs. 2,37,63,322/- is the minimum amount which have excess loaded on Mahapura unit and which must be related to the SEZ unit. The income to be added by an amount of Rs.2,37,63,322/-. Accordingly deduction claimed u/s 10AA is also reduced by this amount of Rs. 2,37,63,322/- and deduction under section 10AA is now remains at Rs. 1,52,49,551/- (39012873-23763322 ) as against claimed by the assessee of Rs. 3,90,12,873/-. 13. The assessment order so passed was rectified u/s. 154 on 25.02.2019 and the income was determined at Rs. 5,86,84,200/-. The ld. PCIT based on the assessment records noted that among other thing that the AO has not made any inquiries regarding the specific information mentioned in the reasons recorded being para 2 on page 2 of the reasons recorded wherein it was noted that M/s Pinkcity Color stone Pvt. Ltd. was having strong profits but later on the same was closed and the plant Machinery as well as building was rented over to the assessee company i.e. Pinkcity Jewel House Pvt. Ltd. The employees of M/s Pinkcity Colour Stones Pvt Ltd. were also absorbed in M/s Pinkcity Jewel House Pvt. Ltd. The management and shareholders of both the compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . M/s Pinkcity Colorstones Pvt. Ltd. has not sold any plant machinery to Sitapura SEZ Unit. M/s Pinkcity Colorstones Pvt. Ltd. was not having strong profits but on the contrary was incurring regular losses. Employees of M/s Pinkcity Colorstones Pvt. Ltd. were absorbed by its DTA Unit, i.e., Mahapura Unit and not by Sitapura SEZ Unit. There is no bar that deduction u/s. 10AA will not be permitted if the management of two companies is similar. Items were not transferred from its Mahapura Unit to Sitapura SEZ unit, even otherwise, some raw-materials (gemstones) were sold which were used for manufacturing by SEZ unit, even otherwise there is no bar under the Act in order to claim deduction u/s. 10AA. In initial years casting machine were not available in Sitapura SEZ unit, hence, casted components were purchased from Pink City Color Stones Pvt Ltd. Complete note of manufacturing activity carried out at each stage of process was also enclosed during assessment proceedings as well as survey proceedings. The Company is maintaining complete records of stock movement at each stage of production process. In assessment year 2010-2011, i.e., the first year in which deduction u/s. 10AA was clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. The bench also noted from the assessee s paper book page 267 to 271 wherein the assessee submitted that the reasons for taking the proceeding u/s. 263 is not an independent view of the ld. PCIT but it is borrowed from the audit memo issued by the internal audit party wherein the audit party in the audit memo based on the para 2 of the assessee s submission dated 29.10.2018 countered the contentions of the ld. AO which the audit party made a base that the ld. AO has not looked at the aspect of the matter and taken a view that benefit of section 10AA is not available to the assessee and they submitted that the claim should not be allowed by the ld. AO. Thus, it is undisputed that the action u/s. 263 based on the audit objection and it has been held in various case law cited by the ld. AR of the assessee holding that proceedings u/s. 263 at the instance of Revenue Audit is impermissible. This view is taken by the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in CIT v. Sohana Woolen Mills (2006) 9 TMI 157 [Compilation 1-3] wherein the court held that A reference to the provisions of section 263 of the Act shows that jurisdiction thereunder can be exercised if the Commissioner of Income-tax find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought time to seek clarification from the Assessing Officer about the status with regards to other assessment years other than A.Y. 2015-2016, accordingly, the matter was adjourned for 07.11.2023. On 07.11.2023, at the request of ld. D/R it was adjourned for 05.12.2023. On 05.12.2023 again an adjournment was sought by ld. D/R, however, due to non-availability of Hon ble Judicial Member, the matter was adjourned to 03.01.2024. On 03.01.2024 again an adjournment was sought by ld. D/R and matter was listed for final hearing on 16.01.2024. On 16.01.2024 again an adjournment was sought by ld. D/R. At one end, the ld. D/R has been seeking adjournment since 31.10.2023, however, at the other side the ld. D/R vide its letter dated 08.11.2023 PB-IV, Pg. 309 has asked the ld. PCIT (Central) to take remedial action u/s. 148 / 263 for the remaining years. On the basis of ld. D/R s letter, the department though has not initiated proceedings u/s. 263 for A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 2017-18 since the same is barred by limitation, however, on the basis of the same, the ld. CIT(A) has issued notices dated 04.01.2024 PB-IV, Pg. 276-305 proposing enhancement of income for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010-2011 to 2017-2018. The entire basis of the proceeding u/s. 263 is based on the revenue audit objection. All the issues relevant for scrutiny assessment have been considered by the Assessing Officer and all relevant enquiries were carried out and there is no fault found the PCIT in other years also and thus it is nothing but a change of opinion when the assessment pursuant to notice u/s. 148 has already been completed and there is no error or fault in the order passed by the assessee and the other issue raised in the reasons recorded for reopening wherein the assessee contented that Rental of plant machinery and building by M/s Pinkcity Colorstones Pvt. Ltd. was to its DTA Unit, i.e., Mahapura Unit and not to Sitapura SEZ Unit. Even the SEZ Rules do not permit to take Building / Plant Machinery on rent, without prior permission of the Development Commissioner and no such permission was taken. No statement by any Director or Employee that plant machinery and building have been given on rent by M/s Pinkcity Colorstones Pvt. Ltd. to Sitapura SEZ Unit. SEZ unit has constructed its own Building and purchased Plant Machinery. M/s Pinkcity Colorstones Pvt. Ltd. has not sold any plant m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
