2016 (3) TMI 677 - ITAT DELHI

Revision u/s 263 - Held that:- We observe that since the assessee has debited a number of other expenses as also wages all of which are also not duly vouched or supported by any material evidence and nothing has been brought on record so as to ascertain the correctness of the same, the actual profit earned by the assessee will further increase by substantial amount then ₹ 3 crores taken by conservative estimate of profits basis upon inflated purchases only. In the background of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered opinion that Ld. CIT has rightly made the addition of ₹ 2,95,58,101/- which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the same.

As regards second part CIT has observed that there are fresh unsecured loans to the tune of ₹ 12069799/- and abnormal sundry creditors to the tune of ₹ 38020903/- which were also the reason for selection of the case for scrutiny on the one hand while as such the assessee is duty bound and heavy onus lies on him to explain the credit entries including the liabilities appearing in its books of account by establishing identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the alleged parties. In our considered opinion, this conclusion of the Ld. CIT does not need any interference, hence, we uphold the same.

As regards third part we note that Ld. CIT has noted that the entries in the fixed assets ₹ 4957110/- was to be looked into from different angles including actual investment, date of actual use, if any, admissibility of depreciation etc. and the AO has directed to enquire the same now. In our view the same also do not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the same.

As regards last point we find that Ld. CIT has observed that the balance of ₹ 34,13,194/- certified by the bankers as on is not shown in the Balance sheet' and are not reflected in the respective accounts of the assessee. The same are also liable to be added in the income to the income of assessee for which the AO may provide the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard and reconcile the difference with supporting evidence, if any. In our considered opinion, this conclusion of the Ld. CIT also does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the same.

Thus we are of the view that the AO was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue since at the time of the assessment the AO was duty bound to call for such details and examine them. We also find that in the case of M/s Malabar Industries, [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court ] has held that incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. We further note that in the same category fall order passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. Accordingly, Ld. CIT has passed a well reasoned revisional order u/s. 263 which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the same and dismiss the Appeal of the Assessee. - Decided against assessee