9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luding the following:- a) The assessment order dated 22/10/2010 passed by the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) of I.T. Act for the year under appeal was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as held by the Id. CIT, Meerut. The onus was on the Id. CIT to prove by bringing evidence on record to show that the assessment order dated 22/10/2010 as passed by AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue which had not at all been discharged. b) The assessment order dated 220/10/2010 u/s 143(3) had been passed by proper application of mind. c) The Id. CIT had either ignored or had not properly appreciated the facts stated and the case law relied upon by the assessee in response to notice u/s 263 as submitted before the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained totally unexplained since the Assessee failed to confirm the same". 3. That various case laws relied upon by the Ld. CIT in the impugned order had either absolutely no application to the facts of Appellant's case or had been delivered on the particular facts prevailing in those cases and had therefore no application, to Assessee's case." 3. Though assessee has raised three grounds of appeal, however their main grievance is that the ld CIT has erred in exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the order originally passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by ACIT, Circle-2, Meerut dated 22.10.2010 was neither erroneous and is not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessee company is engaged in the busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that while framing the order u/s 143(3) read with section 263 the ld AO has accepted the contention of the assessee and has not drawn any adverse inference on increase in authorised capital, therefore on this count the assertion u/s 263 fails. With respect to the acquisition of fixed asset of Rs. 24596119/- only Rs. 620000/- has been doubted. He submitted that the assessee preferred appeal against the order of the ld AO before the first appellate authority against the order passed u/s 143(3) rws 263 of the Act and The ld First appellate authority deleted the addition of Rs. 620000/- out of investment made in the fixed assets, which has been accepted by revenue as the above addition is held to be made only on conjectures and surmises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nquiries were made by the AO and according to ld CIT it is inadequate. He further submitted that there is no requirement for the AO to make elaborate discussion in body of assessment order about each and every enquiry made by him. He further submitted that the case laws relied upon by the ld CIT does not apply to the facts of the case before us. Therefore he vehemently submitted that the ld CIT has erred in exercising power u/s 263 of the Act. 5. The ld DR relied upon the order of the AO and submitted that there is no evidence of letter which are filed by the AO or not. He therefore submitted that in absence of this the ld CIT has correctly exercised her power u/s 263 of the Act. 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. Appa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 49 to 56 of the Paper Book. At Page 133 the assessee has submitted list of 11 creditors as on 31.03.2008 amounting in total to Rs. 15966490/- stating their names, address, PAN, outstanding as on date, and on which such sum is paid. In subsequent documents it submitted copies of ledger account of those parties and further the confirmation of those parties by submitting the copies of the account of the assessee from their books of accounts. In view of this it is apparent that during the course of assessment proceedings the ld AO has examined the outstanding creditors of the assessee along with confirmation as on 31.03.2008. In view this we do not agree with the order of the ld CIT who has held that the assessee has filed the confirmation but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 83 (del) that if there was enquiry even inadequate that would not by itself given occasion Commissioner to pass order u/s 263 of the Act. It was further held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 with the AO is not required to give detailed reason in respect of each of every item of claim in the assessment order. We also reject the argument of the revenue about the veracity of the letters. In fact the letters quoted by the assessee are submission with respect to various notices issued by the ld AO during assessment proceedings. Therefore, it is just an allegation without any evidence. Therefore in view of the above facts We are not inclined to uphold the order passed u/s 263 by ld CIT dated 31.03.2013 for A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
