Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 349 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - Addition u/s 68 - unexplained credit - as per CIT no documentary evidence and confirmation of lender was submitted by the assessee - HELD THAT:- In order to exercise power under section 263(1) there must be material before the Commissioner to consider that the order passed by the ITO was erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and that it must be an order which is not in accordance with the law or which has been passed by the ITO without making any enquiry in undue haste. An order can be said to be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue if it is not in accordance with the law in consequence whereof the lawful revenue due to the State has not been realized or cannot be realized. In the present case, the audit objection was raised. It seems that on the basis of audit objection with regard to unsecured loan, the revision was proposed. In fact there is no audit objection with regard to trade payables. We find that in the case of Pr.CIT Vs Shreeji Prints (Pvt.) Ltd. [2021 (9) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT] held that when AO made enquiries in detail and accepted the genuineness of loan received by assessee, such view of AOwas a plausible view and cannot be considered to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We also find force in the submission of assesse that language of Section 68 itself give discretion to the Assessing Officer about nature and source of explanation to the satisfaction of AO. We find that the AO on unsecured loan as well as on trade payables has taken a reasonable, plausible and legally sustainable view. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd. [2018 (9) TMI 427 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. By following the aforesaid decisions of Superior Courts, the combination of this bench also took similar view in S.U. Enterprises [2022 (11) TMI 670 - ITAT SURAT] in our view, a mere observation of the PCIT that no proper details, with regards to the issues identified by him, were obtained by the assessing officer and has not made inquiries which ought to have made in the present case cannot be a sufficient basis for exercising his jurisdiction. Thus, order of ld PCIT is quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.
|