9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of shop is concerned. It is the settled proposition of law that for invoking jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, the twin conditions, i.e. the order must be erroneous and it must be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue must be satisfied - Assessee appeal allowed. - Shri R. K. Panda, Vice President And Ms Astha Chandra, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Suhas P Bora For the Department : Shri Pankaj Kumar ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.03.2024 of the PCIT(Central), Pune relating to assessment year 2018-19. 2. The assessee in the various grounds raised has specifically challenged the order of the PCIT in invoking the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and thereby setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer for examination of the issue of payment of on-money of Rs. 25 lacs after making proper examination and enquiry. 3. Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income on 14.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 19,68,480/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the catering work. On perusal of the assessment order, he noted that with respect to the issue of unexplained investment made for purchase of shop Nos.11 and 12, the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs. 1 crore only and did not consider the on-money payment of Rs. 25 lacs as mentioned in serial No.4 above. Therefore, the said payment of Rs. 25 lacs, which was required to be added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration, has not been added. From the examination of the details filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, he noted that no such examination / verification was carried out by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. He, therefore, issued a show cause notice asking the assessee to explain as to why the order passed by the Assessing Officer should not be set aside being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 5.1 The assessee filed detailed submissions before the PCIT challenging the invocation of jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer passed the order after making proper enquiry and examination of relevant facts and material availa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed a speaking order after due verification and after examining the material available on record and after seeking explanation from the assessee. Referring to the copy of the order passed by the Assessing Officer in the case of Smt. Soram Kaluram Gehlot, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to para 14 of the order and submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition on the basis of some seized documents in respect of purchase of shop Nos.11, 12 and 13 in Rajgruhi Business Hub, a project developed by M/s. Dhamale Buildcon in the hands of the spouse of the assessee. Therefore, the PCIT is wrong in holding that the assessee has paid the on-money in respect of purchase of shop Nos.11 and 12. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that no revision u/s. 263 of the Act can be made where the assessment orders are passed after due verification and after examining the material available as well as after seeking explanation from the assessee: i. CIT vs Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 ii. Malabar Indust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention of on money paid and elaborately discussed in satisfaction note. In its support reliance on various judicial decisions and it is forcefully claimed that assessee has not made any payment as on money to Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale or his group concern and accordingly it is requested not to draw any adverse inference on the basis of seized paper, notice of the same are not at all related to assessee. The submission made by the assessee clearly indicates that she is aware of the facts that she has done the transaction with Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale and his group. Since, there is denial of the fact that she is not aware of Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale. In fact, the details of seized material in the premises of Dhamale Group clearly indicate that the assessee through Mr. Kaluram Gehlot has purchased Shop no.11, 12, 13 and paid Rs. 5,00,000/- against these shops. The investment made by the assessee is evidenced from the fact that purchase of these shops no.12 13 are appearing in the books of account of the assessee by showing through Punjab National Bank. If this aspect is consider, it is clear that the statement submitted before the Settlement Commission clearly indicates that as against following entrie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act is initiated herein for income determined u/s 69 of the Act. 14. Since it is clear from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in the case of Smt. Soram Kaluram Gehlot that shop Nos.11 and 12 are purchased by the wife of assessee and the Assessing Officer has made addition u/s 69 of the Act in the case of Smt. Soram Kaluram Gehlot, therefore, there was due verification of the facts by the Assessing Officer in the body of the assessment order. In the case of the assessee also, the Assessing Officer has called for various details and after examining details, the Assessing Officer has passed the order. 14.1 It has been held in various decisions that no revision u/s 263 of the Act can be made where the assessment orders are passed after due verification and after examining the material available as well as after seeking the explanation from the assessee. Since the Assessing Officer in the instant case has made detailed enquiry in the case of the assessee and in the case of spouse of the assessee. Further, the so-called shop Nos.11 and 12 were not purchased by the assessee and in fact were purchased by the wife of the assessee, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
