TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus we hold that these orders passed u/s 263 of the Act are bad in law and all the orders passed by the PCIT u/s 263 are hereby quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.1129,1130, 1131/KOL/2018, 1132 & 1133/KOL/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) - - - Dated:- 14-1-2020 - Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member And Sri A. T. Varkey, Judicial Member Shri Pramod Himatsinghka, A/R, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri Imokaba Jamir, CIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- All these appeals are filed by the assessees and directed against separate orders of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Kolkata (hereinafter the ld. CIT(A) ) passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act ). 2. In the case of Mrs. Premlata Tekriwal in ITA No.1129/Kol/2018, there is a delay of 10 days in filing of the appeal. In the case of Mrs. Premlata Tekriwal in ITA Nos.1130 1131/Kol/2018 and in the case of Binod Kumar Tekriwal in ITA Nos.1132 1133/Kol/2018, there is a delay of 2 days in filing of the appeal. Condonation petitions have been filed by these assessees in each of the appeals request ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission furnished by A/R of the assessee is not acceptable. As the assessee got some benefit of such bogus purchase there would be no denial of the fact that assessee's estimated income will increase to certain extent. Considering the fact of the case and on given circumstances, there should be logical conclusion in increasing the income by way of estimated addition of 3% of bogus purchases of ₹ 54,13,476/-. Hence 3% is added on estimate on the bogus purchase. Accordingly, ₹ 1,62,405/- is added to total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars. 4. The ld. Principal CIT-10, Kolkata issued a notice u/s 263 of the Act proposing to review and revise the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act on the ground that there is an error in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He was of the view that the Assessing Officer should have made a disallowance of the entire fictitious purchases made through accommodation bills and not simply making a disallowance to the extent of 3% of the bogus purchases. He was of the view that as per section 69C of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be bogus. These confirmations are placed at pages 40 to 45 and 41 to 56 of the assesse's paper book for A.Y.2010-11 and 2011-12. The assessee also filed all copies of sales bills of all sales effected by it during the previous year relevant to A.Y.2010-11 and 2011-12. These details are available at page 69- 153 and 91-203 of assessee's paper book for A.Y.2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. The statement showing the source of funds and the mode of payment for the purchases which were claimed by the revenue to be bogus were also furnished. These details are given as Annexure -I and Annexure-II respectively for A.Y.2010-11 and 2011-12 to this order. 22. In the light of the information received from DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai, and the evidence filed by the assessee claiming that purchases from the aforesaid four parties were genuine, the AO concluded that the purchases from the four parties were not genuine.. This conclusion was based only on the information received by the AO from the DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai. After drawing the above conclusion the issue before the AO was as to whether the entire value of purchases should be added to the total income. Towards this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT has observed that the AO ought to have made enquiries from the alleged bogus purchase bill/entry providers and held that purchases were bogus. The AO has already held that the purchases were bogus and the only question before him was as to whether the entire purchases ought to be added as income or only a portion of the purchases towards inflated cost. 26. The CIT has made reference to Explanation-2 to Sec.263 of the Act introduced by the Finance Act, 2015. Explanattion-2 so introduced sets out cases in which order of the AO can be deemed as erroneous. The said explanation does not dispense with compliance or existence of (i) there being no enquiry made by the AO; (ii) the AO's conclusion being contrary to CBDT Circular or (iii) against decision of Jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court. In the present case the CIT in the impugned order has not brought facts to show the existence of absence of enquiry especially when the AO has already concluded that the purchases by the assessee from four parties mentioned by the DGIT(Investigation) Mumbai in its report were bogus. The decision of the Mumbai and Delhi ITAT in the case of M/s. Shri Narayan Tatu Rane (supra) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
