9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1098X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but pertains to another person. We note that the Ld.PCIT did not raise any query as to what enquiries were made by the Assessing Officer before proceeding to pass the assessment order in question. The opinion of the Ld.PCIT that the Assessing Officer had not made proper enquiries or verifications should be based on his objective satisfaction and not a subjective satisfaction from the assessment order. The reopening in this case was held on the basis of information received from Insight Portal, whereby, the AO asked the assessee to furnish the necessary details from time to time which were duly furnished by the assessee and after considering the same the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order. However, a perusal of the revision order passed by the Ld.PCIT shows that the Ld.PCIT has not pointed out any error or discrepancy in the explanations and details furnished by the assessee and without examining such evidence and without counter questioning the assessee on the relevant points and even without considering the submission of the assessee furnished in reply to the show-cause notice, the Ld.PCIT, in our view, was not justified in setting aside the order, simply stating that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment of the income and issued notice u/s. 263 of the Act for revision of the order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act. 2.4. The assessee in reply to the notice of Ld.Pr.CIT contended that the order of the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 is barred. 2.5. The relevant part of the reply of the assessee is reproduced herewith for the sake of clarity: Submission 1. Your honour have proposed an addition of Rs. 1,36,02,120 being alleged transactions with Sanjay Tibrewal (i.e. Sanjay Govindram Agrawal) or Alpaben Anilkumar Shah, Jignaben Samirbhai Shah, Harish Purohit, Hasmukh Jameshkumar Purohit, Lucky Bajoria, Niranjan Nareshbhai Makwana, Sandip Nareshbhai Makwana, Vivekkumar Kamalkumar Agrawal or any employee or ex-employee of Sanjay Tibrewal. 2. We invite your honours kind attention to our earlier submissions as well as our objection to reasons recorded, in which it was repeatedly submitted to your honour that we have not carried out any such alleged transactions. 3. Even at the stage of final show cause notice, your honour has just repeated reasons recorded and proposed an addition. Your hono ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ietor firm M/s. Dee Are Products Prop. of Divyaraj Madanlal Gupta (PAN: ACVPG1840P) and not by us. The said firm is separately assessed to tax. Due to mentioning of Dee Are in the bank statement of Sanjay Tibrewal group, our case is mistakenly reopened and accordingly addition is proposed, which is factually incorrect. 8. In view of facts of the case as narrated above with evidences, we kindly request not to call for addition in the hands of the assessee, since no such alleged transactions has been entered into by present assessee. 5. In view of above, it is amply evident that in the course of assessment Ld. AO had made sufficient inquiry and verified the issue under consideration and accordingly had not made an addition. 6. Hence, we kindly request your honour not to call for revision of assessment order. Factually also, the alleged entry of Rs. 13602120/-belongs to M/s. Dee Are Products Prop. Divyaraj Madanlal Gupta (Pan no. ACVPG1840P) for which we have submitted a. Ledger account of M/s. Dee Are Products Prop. Divyaraj Madanlal Gupta (PAN: ACVPG1840P) from the books of Austvinayak Textiles. b. Ledger account of Austvinayak Textiles from books of M/s. Dee Are Products Prop. Divy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal. On the grounds of appeal 4. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee explained the case with the help of the paper-book submitted. Primarily, he explained that the information available with the revenue on Insight Portal pertains to Divyaraj Madanlal Gupta (PAN: ACVPG1840P) who is a proprietor M/s Dee Are Products. He also took us through the submissions made before the AO in response to notices issued and explained the details thereof. 5. The Ld.Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, relied on the order of the Ld.PCIT and argued that the AO has not mentioned anything in his order about the accommodation entries for which the case was reopened. He persistently stated that the information as available on Insight Portal has not been investigated by the AO and, therefore, the Ld.PCIT has correctly assumed his jurisdiction. However, he agreed that no specific evidence is brought on record by the Ld.PCIT as stated by him in his order about the accommodation entries of the assessee. 6. We have heard the contentions of both he parties and perused the material available on records. The fundamental issue to address is whether the Ld.PCIT was justified in invoking jurisdiction u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jawahar Bhattacharjee (341 ITR 434) (Gauhati) (HC): Where the Hon ble High Court decided that the term erroneous involves non-application of mind, incorrect assumption of facts, or incorrect application of law and the term prejudicial refers to prejudice to the income-tax administration as a whole. 6.5. As per the provisions of section 263 of the Act, after getting the explanation from the assessee, the Ld.PCIT was supposed to examine the contention of the assessee. Before passing an order of modifying, enhancing or cancelling the assessment, he was supposed either to himself make or cause to make such an enquiry as he deems necessary. We note that the Ld.PCIT did not raise any query as to what enquiries were made by the Assessing Officer before proceeding to pass the assessment order in question. The opinion of the Ld.PCIT that the Assessing Officer had not made proper enquiries or verifications should be based on his objective satisfaction and not a subjective satisfaction from the assessment order. 6.6. The reopening in this case was held on the basis of information received from Insight Portal, whereby, the AO asked the assessee to furnish the necessary details from time to tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
