9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le issue, merely because there are certain inconsistencies in the last para 10 thereof would not vitiate the entire revision proceedings.
PCIT ought to have carried out the necessary enquiry himself before terming the assessment herein as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue - We hold that the assessee's instant last argument also does not carry any substance once the learned PCIT has clearly made out a case of "no enquiry" by the assessing authority which attracts both the limbs of it's assessment as an erroneous one as well as causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue in light of Malabar Industries Ltd. [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT]
We accordingly conclude in light of our preceding detailed discussion that the learned PCIT has rightly exercised his impugned revision jurisdiction in the given facts of the case. Decided against assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t making any appropriate enquiries and even while ignoring the fact that the freight charges bills provided by the assessee of M/s. Milap Transport Road lines, were in reply to notice u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee informed that "the GR/Bilties as annexed with the present notice are neither printed by us nor issued by us at any point of time and they are forged and fabricated GR/Bilties. It is pertinent to mention that no goods were transported for M/S Vipul Mittal HUF at any point of time by our office especially on the dates as mentioned on the said bilties/invoices. The said bilties/invoices are forged and fabricated as my trade name i.e. (Milap) is not written properly". This is evident from this that assessee had no agricultural income and had shown such huge agricultural income on the basis of dubious activities at far distant locations. The careful consideration of statement of the Karta recorded oh 12-12-2018 had amply shown that the agriculture income shown by the HUF assessee was not genuine. It is also found that the assessee had shown huge agricultural income in the preceding years and the same should be verified by the A.O. 3. In view of the above obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2017, 20/11/2017 and 28/12/2017 as asked by the AO vide its notice dated 18/04/2017 and 21/08/2017. Copy of same is enclosed herewith. 1. Copy of J From issued by the Anaj Mandi Nabha and Sale bills issued by the M/s Guru Kirpa & Co. 2. Detail of expenditure incurred for cultivation along with supporting documents. 3. Detail of agriculture Land along with lease deed. 4. Farad (Jamabanadi) kept by Patwari for land ownership and its use to prove the agriculture land used by the Assessee. Apart from the above, the AO has also verified the details/information filed by the Assessee through independent inquiry by issuing notices u/s 133(6) to the following persons: - Date Name Nature of transaction Status Certified copy of reply 06/10/2017 M/s Vikram Traders Commission Agent Complied Enclosed 06/10/2017 M/s Kapoor Chand Telu Ram Commission Agent Complied Enclosed 06/10/2017 M/s Sarpanch Commission Agent Commission Agent Complied Enclosed 06/10/2017 M/s Dhaliwal & Co. Commission Agent Complied Enclosed 06/10/2017 M/s Guru Kripa & Commission Agent Complied Enclosed Since, the A O has not found any discrepancy in the documents/ details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. The assessing officer is directed to grant adequate opportunity to the assessee to represent their case and observe natural justice during proceedings to make the case maintainable as per law." 5.1 This leaves the assessee aggrieved. 6. Learned counsel vehemently argues that the PCIT has erred both in law as well as on facts in holding the above stated regular assessment dated 29.12.2017 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. He refers to the assessee's detailed paper book running into 212 pages not only comprising all the relevant scrutiny notice(s) dated 19.09.2016 u/s 143(2) of the Act raising specific question on details of agricultural income but also the replies submitted thereto as well as all the ledger accounts and other details. He further seeks to buttress the point that the Assessing Officer had issued section 133(6) notice(s) to the assessee's various commission agents as well in order to examine it's agricultural income exemption claim. 7. It is at this stage that we put a specific question to the assessee as to how much land falls under it's ownership. We are informed very fairly that this HUF/appellant does not itself own eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
