TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per Shri Sonjoy Sarma , JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ( the Act )] dated 16.03.2020 for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: i. That the order dated 16th March, 2020 passed by Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 5, Kolkata under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, setting aside the assessment order dated 28th December, 2017 passed by Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Kolkata under section 143(3)/147 of Income Tax Act, 1961, is without jurisdiction, against law and facts of the case and therefore liable to be quashed. ii. That the impugned order dated 16th March, 2020 passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is void ab initio and without jurisdiction in as much as the re-assessment proceedings initiated vide Notice dated 28th March, 2017 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the resultant order dated 28th December, 2017 passed under section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 where itself initiated/passed on non-existing, unlawful ground and without aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee of Rs. 41,33,000/- in its account. This transaction was made by the assessee through R.S. Enterprise, Rupam Traders and Suruchi Trading during the A.Y. 2010-11. The ld. PCIT cannot for the very same reason revise the assessment order passed by the ld. AO. He drew the attention of the bench by submitting copy of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment as well as show cause notice issued by the ld. PCIT prior to passing of his order u/s 263 of the Act to demonstrate that on both occasions were for the very same reason. The AO while completing the assessment u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act on 28.12.2017 had conducted enquiry / obtained information relevant documents as per notice u/s 142 and ld. AO had not made any addition. The ld. AO had made adequate enquiry and it is not a case of lack of enquiry or lack of application of mind and that revision cannot be made on the ground of inadequate enquiries. Moreover, the ld. PCIT did not conduct any enquiry for coming to the conclusion that the order requires revision. Such lack of enquiry and non-application of mind by ld. PCIT makes the order bad in law. Besides that the ld. AO in the reassessment order dated 28.12.2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the F.Y 2009-10 relevant to the A.Y 2010-1l had total buying of Rs.1,23,87,600/- and total selling of Rs. 1,24,89,512.5/- and the difference is Rs. 1,01,.912.5/- as profit and then total buying of Rs. 1.23,46,400/- and total selling of Rs. 82,13,400/-, total loss claimed of Rs. 41,33.000/- in his P:L booked. This transaction was made through (Sub Broker (Ledger fil ) R.S. Enterprise, Rupam Taders and Suruchi Trading during the A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee company filed I. T return for the A. Y 2010-11 on 07.10.2010 showing income of Rs. Nil. Consequently, the assessee company has made high value banking transaction which is not commensurate with its return of income. Thus, the information clearing funds are followed by outgoing transfer and the funds appeared to be washed using the banking system. The points of suspicious are the company's explanation about the credentials of transactions which were not convincing. The transfer had no logic to support the act of layering. By these modus operandi the assessee brought back his unaccounted income in his regular books of accounts. In this situation further investigation is required as per provision of I.T Act for the be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 of the Act by holding as under: 5. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Calcutta (PCIT) was justified in invoking its power under section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal considered the factual issue and more particularly the fact that on the very same issue the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act and after discussing the case and conducting an enquiry relief was granted to the assessee. 6. In spite of such being the factual position, the PCIT proposed to revise the reassessment order dated 20th May, 2016 by issuing show-cause notice dated 8th March, 19 on the same issue. The Tribunal after considering the factual issue held as follows : From the above it is clear that reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment and the reason for initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the Act, are the same and based on the same material. The allegation in this show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act, is that the Assessing Officer has failed to examine and that no enquiry was conducted into the veracity of the loans by the Assessing Officer, is factually incorrect. It is well settled that inad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
