Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1104 - ITAT KOLKATARevision u/s 263 - Addition u/s 68 - CIT was of the opinion that the genuineness of the creditors remained unverified to the extent of ₹ 96,46,987/- and he was pleased to set aside the order of the AO with a direction to the AO to verify the identity and genuineness, inter-alia, of the creditors to the extent of ₹ 96,46,987/- and to pass a fresh assessment order recomputing the income - HELD THAT:- We note that the main reason given by the Ld. Pr. CIT to interfere with the assessment order dated 30.12.2016, while issuing SCN proposing to initiate revisional jurisdiction was started with the assumption of fact that the AO without making enquiries and verification in respect of sundry creditors to the tune of ₹ 2,11,05,222/- (as per the Balance Sheet) has framed the assessment order and however, while concluding the Ld. Pr. CIT found that the verification need to be restricted to only ₹ 96,46,987/- after hearing the assessee during the revisional proceedings. Since the assessee had complied with the queries on the issue and filed details of sundry creditors and the AO has made enquiries in respect of the sundry creditors then in such a scenario, the ld Pr CIT in order to find that there is any fault/deficiency in the enquiry conducted by the AO while framing assessment order, then it was incumbent upon the Ld. Pr. CIT to have conducted an enquiry by himself on the issue and record his finding of fact that could show that AO order is un-sustainable in law, which he did not do. So, the AO’s action/enquiry in respect of the sundry creditors cannot be held to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. For that we rely on the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (9) TMI 529 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and, therefore, respectfully following the ratio of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and in view of the enquiry made by the AO the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act cannot be sustained and quashed for want of jurisdiction. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
|