9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts and in law in ignoring the fact that all the issues raised by him in notice under Section263.were before the A.O. and as such the jurisdiction on this issue under Section 263 cannot be assumed. 4. On the factsand circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT has erred both on facts andin law in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the issues raised in the show cause notice were before the AO in proceedings under Section 143(3) and were allowed after application of mind by him as such the same cannot be the matter for reassessment under Section 263 of the Act. 5. On the factsand circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT has erred both on facts andin law in ignoring the fact that the proceeding under Section 263 cannot be used for substituting option of the A.O. by that of the Pr. CIT. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT has erred both on facts and in law in invoking revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act despite the fact that even after thorough examination, no specific findings have been given on the issue of how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 7. On the facts and circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of other two issues, the Ld. A.O has accepted the reply/clarification given by the assessee. Therefore submitted that the only issue to be considered in the present appeal is regarding issue of difference between the sales admitted by the assessee and sales found reflected in Form No. 26AS. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that during the original assessment proceedings, the notice u/s 142(1) dated 02/02/2017 for which the assessee Company filed point wise reply wherein the assessee had furnished the required documents and explained in details that all the three issues including the issue of difference between sales as per books of accounts and also as per Form No. 26AS. Considering the reply filed by the assessee, the A.O. passed the assessment order on 21/12/2017, the Ld. PCIT during the 263 proceedings issued show cause notice on all the three issues including the issue of difference between the sales as per books of accounts and as per 26AS of the assessee. The assessee had once again filed detailed reply on 16/04/2019 and submitted the reason for difference in sales as per books of assessee and as per 26AS. Further furnished copy of purchases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l year 2014-15. However the IDS deducted as form 26AS was Rs. 51,74,694/- which was extra given by the following parties and assessee has neither taken in books of account nor claimed in its income tax return. Amount of IDS are as follows:- S. No. Detail of Party TDS Nature 1 Logix Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 23588 Do not belong to assessee 2 Shaporji Pallonji & company Pvt. Ltd. 35640 Advance 3 Sankalp Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. 10000 Advance As amount of Rs. 23,588/- from Logix Infrastructure Pvt., Ltd. has wrongly entered in 26AS. We have neither receipt any amount nor we have raised any bill. So, we have not claimed in the ITR as well as not entered in the books of account. In case of Shapoorji Pailonji & company private Ltd it was for advance received and assessee has not claimed TDS on the same and not in income tax return, In case of Sankaip Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. it was also received as an advance and assessee has not taken this amount of TDS in the income tax return. Further the TDS not taken during the relevant financial year will be taken in the next year when the income shall arise. Since the accounting being done on mercantile basis." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.This company has been taken over by M/s Alpha G Corp Development Private Limited as per the order of Delhi High Court New Delhi order dated 04.04.2016.We are enclosing herewith as per page no. 4 to 14. Further Alpha G Corp. Development Pvt. Ltd, has changed its name to M/s Alpha Corp Development Pvt. Ltd. They have removed the word "G" from the name, in this regard we are enclosing herewith copy of Board resolution and certificate of incorporation pursuant to change of name of company date 27.01.2016 as per page no. 15 to 17,Hence the assessee has shown in its books in the new name of company M/s Alpha Corp. Deveioper Pvt. Ltd. So this is the case of taken over of company M/s Epitome Real Tech Pvt. Ltd. by M/s Alpha G Corp Development Pvt. Ltd. and later on change its name to M/s Alpha Corp, Development Ltd. So it is clear it is the same company which assessee has shown in its books of account IDS deducted. 13. It is found that the Ld. PCIT even after providing the said reply by the assessee, set aside the assessment order dated 21/12/2017 and directed to re-examine the same issue. The only reason assigned by the Ld. PCIT was that the "explanation of the assessee seems to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
