TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nished of Sh. Bharat Harwani so as to establish/prove the genuineness and creditworthiness in respect of this unsecured loan - What the ld Pr CIT has stated are basic documentation which is reasonably expected to be called for and examined by the AO as part of standard operating procedure for verifying the genuineness of loan transaction and creditworthiness of the lender. There is nothing on record that the AO on receipt of so called confirmation has called for any further information/documentation from the assessee or carried out any independent examination u/s 133(6) Given that the AO basis a mere confirmation so filed by the assessee which in reality is not a confirmation in absence of signature and authentication has accepted the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the ld Pr CIT to exercise jurisdiction u/s 263, firstly, the order passed by the ITO must be erroneous and secondly, the error must be such that it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If the order is erroneous but it is not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, the Commissioner cannot exercise the revisional jurisdiction under section 263(1) and reliance was placed on the decision in case of H.H. Maharaja Raja Power Dewas V. CIT(1982) 138 ITR 518 (M.P.). 3. It was further submitted that in response to PCIT S show cause notice, the assessee submitted as under:- (a) Bharat Harwani: As per confirmation filed as per e-submission dated 17.09.2018, there was no opening balance shown for the F.Y. 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng balance as on 31.03.2016. 4. It was submitted that after going through the e-filed documents paper book, the A.O. has correctly judiciously examined decided the issue. It is further to inform that A.O. is suppose to take all such documents, evidences to his satisfaction A.O. has only after examining the evidences, as e-filed necessarily required for assessment proceedings have sought the details, examined, verified. Even all of the confirmation as filed were examined re- verified u/sec. 133(6) of Act. Thus, from above e-filed documents during assessment proceedings submissions to LD PCIT, the LD PCIT has only claimed for wrong inference. This wrong inference has even not been looked properly with the documents e-filed du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustify the parameters as laid down for invoking the provisions of section 263 as held in case of CIT v/s NIRAV MODI (2017) 390 ITR 292 (BOM) (HC) wherein it was held that It has been held that enquiries were made by the A.O. and such enquiries need not reflect in order of assessment especially if the A.O. accepted the claim, for if the issues which have attained finality are discussed in order of assessment, it would become an epitome and not a judicial order and that the order of assessment simply records the dissatisfaction of the A.O. with respect to amounts claimed or where tax has escaped assessment. The commissioner had to be specific and must arrive at findings as to how the order in question is erroneous. The duty cannot cast on A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditworthiness in respect of this unsecured loan. b) As regard unsecured loan from Sh. Rahul Harwani having closing balance of ₹ 10,44,730/-, the assessee has furnished a photocopy of ledger confirmation from Sh. Rahul Harwani. However, on examination of the same it is seen that out of total credits of ₹ 13,19,548/- during the year, only ₹ 5,64,548/- have been shown to be received through cheque and remaining entries are general entries pertaining to purchase expense etc., i.e. they are not through account payee cheque or account payee draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account. Hence, there seems to be violation of provision of section 269SS of the I.T. Act. c) As regards unsecured loan of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hadra Singh (HUF) Vs PCIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh) CIT vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bombay) Jeevan Investment Finance (P.) Ltd vs. CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 552 (Bombay) Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) Daniel Merchants P Ltd and others (SLP No. 23976/2017 dated 29.11.2017) Goa Sesa Sterlite Limited (erstwhile Sesa Goa Ltd) vs. CIT (Tax Appeals No. 27/2015 and 28/2015 dated 2nd November, 2020). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and purused the material available on record. We find that one of the key reasons for scrutiny selection was verification of unsecured loans and therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the Assessing officer to carry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
