Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 341 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - CIT-A set aside the assessment order passed by AO u/s 147 and directed the AO to initiate fresh assessment proceedings and carry out necessary verification - bogus purchases - receipt of information from DGIT(Inv.) Kolkata, that the assessee had taken accommodation entry from an entry operator of Mumbai, who had provided bogus entries for purchases - exercise of revisionary powers u/s 263 by CIT-A - finding of the Pr. CIT is that AO could have made proper verification in the absence of relevant vital information as that the material placed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer was not sufficient to come to a conclusion that only 3% of the bogus purchases are to be considered for the additions - no proper enquiry/verification conducted by the Assessing Officer. Held that:- In our view this conclusion of the ld. Pr. CIT, is factually incorrect. The quantitative details have not been found fault with. None of the facts stated, have been controverted. The reply of the assessee extracted above demonstrated that all necessary documents and evidences were furnished before the Assessing Officer. AO had also issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act, to the sellers at the addresses given by the DGIT-(Inv.), Kolkata. He had received replies from these persons confirming the transactions. He only doubted the mode of delivery of these diamonds. The assessee furnished sufficient evidence to prove the mode of delivery. On these facts, the Assessing Officer chose not to bring to tax 97% of the value of the purchases to tax as bogus purchases. The issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia [2017 (10) TMI 729 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. Even otherwise, when the issue is pending before the ld. CIT(A)-3, Kolkata, the ld. Pr. CIT, does not have the jurisdiction to exercise his powers u/s 263 of the Act, in view of explanation 1 (c) of Section 263 - revisionary powers cannot be exercise under these facts and circumstances of this case. The Assessing Officer in this case considered all the evidences and had taken a possible view under the law. - Decided in favour of assessee
|