Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (3) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sessing Officer was of the view that the aforesaid amount represented cash sales/out of book sales carried out by the assessee during the year under consideration. Accordingly the Assessing Officer calculated the GP rate @ 19.40% on the aforesaid cash sales. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue in detail during the course of original assessment proceedings and also had taken a view which was a legally plausible view - We are unable to accept the proposition that the entire explained cash transaction should be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee, since it is a settled principle of law only the real "income" may be subject to tax in hands of the asssessee and nor the entire rece .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the Ld. PCIT to deem an order prejudicial and erroneous to the interest of revenue? (B) Whether on the facts of the case as well as law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in quashing the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act of Ld. PCIT especially when the Assessment Order passed by the AO is unsustainable in law? (C) Whether on the facts of the case as well as law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in quashing the order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act of Ld. PCIT observing that the A.O. not erred in applying the GP rate of 19.40% of total case transaction of Rs. 1,21,81,000/- made by the assessee with National Shroff, especially when Ld. PCIT has correctly observed that the A.O. did not properly examine the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f Rs.1,21,81,000/- made by the assessee with the National Shroff. 3.3 Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT, on examination of the assessment records, found that the Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.23,63,115/- by taking G.P. @ 19.40% of the total cash transactions of Rs.1,21,81,000/- made with National Shroff. Thus, the Ld. PCIT concluded that the Assessing Officer had not verified the cash transactions amounting to Rs.1,21,81,000/-. 3.4 Accordingly, the Ld. PCIT passed an order dated 02.02.2022, under Section 263 of the Act, cancelling the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act, with a direction to make a fresh assessment by making an inquiry and verification. 3.5 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assesse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 133(6) of the Act was issued to the partner of M/s National Shroff, Rajkot. On the basis of disclosures made by the partner of National Shroff and the documents analysed by the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the aforesaid amount represented unaccounted cash sales of the assessee during the impugned year under consideration. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the GP rate of assessee's business was declared @ 19.40% and accordingly, the Assessing Officer applied the aforesaid rate of 19.40% to the unaccounted sales amounting to Rs. 1,12,81,010/- and made addition of Rs. 23,63,115/-. In the 263 proceedings, the PCIT was of the view that the Assessing Officer erred in applying the GP rate of 19.40% .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e and nor the entire receipts. Accordingly, the ld. Assessing Officer not erred in applying the GP rate of 19.40% after holding that the aforesaid sum represented unaccounted cash sales of assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer took one of plausible/ possible view looking into the instant facts of the case and the ld. PCIT cannot take recourse to proceedings u/s 263 of the Act only with a view to supplant/substitute his own view with that of the Assessing Officer on the ground that alternate view should have been taken by the Assessing Officer. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), wherein it was held as under: "When an Income Tax Officer adopted one o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates