9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lack of inquiry as the AO had examined the issue in the course of assessment proceeding. The scope of Commissioner s power u/s 263 of the Act would be available when the AO conducts no enquiry or no proper enquiry or doesn t apply his mind to the legal issues arising out of the material on record; only then the revisional power is available. In the present case, the AO did conduct proper inquiries based on which the case was reopened and had accepted the explanation of the assessee - PCIT was not justified in invoking the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 - Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Sulabh Padshah, AR For the Revenue : Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR ORDER PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1 [hereinafter referred to as PCIT in short] dated 27.03.2024, in exercise of his revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act in short], for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The brief fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccommodation entries in form of fictitious loan received of Rs 35,04,500/- and after verification of objection filed against such reopening and after due application of mind, the Ld. AO has passed the order accepting the contention of the Appellant. It is therefore submitted that is no question of any lack of inquiry or verification on the part of assessing officer and further under assessment of income. In view of this, order passed u/s 263 being totally illegal and unjustifiable be set aside and Assessment Order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act be restored. The same please be held accordingly. 4. The learned Pr. C.I.T. has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer has not verified the issue of accommodation entries of Rs. 35,04,500/- with Jignesh Shah. It is submitted that during reopening proceeding while granting the approval u/s 151 of the Act, the Pr. C.I.T. has himself confirmed the information about accommodation entries in form of fictitious loan of Rs. 35,04,500/-, whereas, now he turned up and wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 263 of the Act under shelter that the AO has not verified issue properly. Thus the actions of Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act is itself c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 27.03.2024 for the reason that the reopening was made on incorrect formation of belief. The ld. AR submitted that in view of these facts, the ld. PCIT was not correct in setting aside the order for AY 2013-14. He also relied upon the following decisions in support of his contention that the order of the Assessing Officer was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue:- 1. Dee Are Texfab Pvt.Ltd vs vs PCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) (Order Dt 25-7- 2024) 2. HBC Lifesciences Private Limited vs PCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) (Order Dt 5-7-2024) 3. M/s. Pramukh Realty vs PCIT (ITAT Rajkot) (Order Dt 21-03- 2023) 4. CIT vs Kamal Galani (Guj. HC) (Order Dt 11-06-2018) 5. PCIT vs Klaxon Trading Pvt Ltd (Delhi HC) (Order Dt 29-11- 2023) 6. PCIT Vs Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalp Ltd (Bombay HC) ( Order Dt 5- 8-2022) 7. Ahlcon Parenterals (India) Ltd Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) (Order Dt 21-05- 2024) 8. Shri Jignesh Lilachand Shah Vs PCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) (ITA No. 149/Ahd/2021) (Order Dt 21-3-2023) 5. Per contra, Shri Sudhendu Das, ld. CIT-DR, submitted that the ld. PCIT had given a categorical finding that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous since the information available in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued by the ld. PCIT. In fact, the assessee had also requested the ld. PCIT to provide the details of the transactions on the basis of which the proceedings u/s 263 was proposed to be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT did not make any inquiry in the matter, and dismissed the objection of the assessee. The alleged transaction was categorically denied by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the ld. PCIT. It was incumbent upon the Revenue to provide the evidence on the basis of which the case was reopened by the Assessing Officer, when the transaction was out-rightly denied by the assessee. Since the matter was duly examined by the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings, we do not find the order of the Assessing Officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Assessing Officer had taken a view after considering the reply of the assessee and dropped the proceeding u/s 147 of the Act, by accepting the returned income. The action of the ld. PCIT to impose his own view in the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act on the view as taken by the AO, without bringing any new fact or anything adverse on record, cannot be held as correct. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
