9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to a certain percentage - HELD THAT:- The tribunal has elaborately examined this issue, taken note of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [ 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT ] and allowed the appeal. Further, the tribunal has noted that the assessing officer had made an addition of 2% to the gross profit over and above the rate of gross profit of 4.63% totalli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chartered Accountant, the quantity details were given in respect of opening stock, purchase, sales, closing stock, etc. Tribunal pointed out that no discrepancy was found between the purchase shown by the assessee and the sales decline. Thus, on facts, the tribunal concluded that assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act was erroneous. Decided in favour of assessee. - THE HON BLE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as much as the Assessing Officer completed an assessment which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the Assessing Officer did not add back the amount of Rs. 48,84,550/- being the bogus purchase of shares which was directed by the DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai through the DIT (Investigation), West Bengal Sikkim? ii) Whether the Learned Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noted that the assessing officer had made an addition of 2% to the gross profit over and above the rate of gross profit of 4.63% totalling to 7.63%. It appears that after completing the assessment the assessing officer addressed the PCIT stating that certain error has occurred in the assessment order and requested him to review the order under section 263 of the Act. Whether such a procedure adop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ales decline. Thus, on facts, the tribunal concluded that assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT under section 263 of the Act was erroneous. In our considered view, there is no error in the order passed by the tribunal nor there is any perversity in its approach for us to interfere. We find that there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law arising in this appeal. Consequently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
