9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see has raised the following grounds of appeal before us :- "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order dated 27.03.2021 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT), under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") is without jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law and void- ab-initio. 1.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed by the PCIT is illegal and bad in law, being: (a) barred by limitation prescribed under section 263(2) of the Act; (b) initiated to cancel/set-aside reassessment order which had attained finality under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 ("the VsV"); and (c) initiated to revise reassessment order in respect of issues which were not even subject matter of reopening proceedings. 1.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, impugned revisionary proceedings were without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law since the reassessment order dated 28.12.2018 sought to be revised was itself without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law. 1.3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ronically filed by the assessee on 30.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs 5,19,760/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2011 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs 8,49,215/-. Amongst various additions made by the ld. AO in the said assessment , one such addition was on account of mismatch / difference in purchases amounting to Rs 42,650/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the ld. CIT(A)] who vide order dated 26.10.2012 deleted the addition made in the sum of Rs 42,650/- on account of difference in purchases. However, other additions made by the ld. AO were confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee preferred further appeal against the said order of ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order in ITA No. 6368/Del/2012 dated 28.06.2013. 5. Subsequently on the basis of information received from Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.) Unit-I , Dehradun and examination of the said information, it was gathered that the assessee had made purchases of Rs 1,06,80,540/- from M/s Meet Enterprises and had made payments to the tune of Rs 73,45,040/- thereon. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnish the detail of payments made to Contractors on account of Transportation and Sea Port Clearance for Rs. 30,52,440/- and the Detail of TDS done on the same. 5. Kindly furnish the TDS return filed by you, for the year under consideration." 6. Further yet another show cause notice was issued by the ld. AO as to why the assessment should not be completed u/s 144 of the Act vide notice dated 16.12.2018. In the said notice, the ld. AO had proposed to make disallowance of Rs 73,45,040/- alone towards bogus purchases. The assessee furnished her reply vide letter dated 26.12.2018 before the ld. AO by way of letter sent by post. The ld. AO observed that assessee was required to submit the evidence in support of claim of purchases made from so called M/s Meet Enterprises, in the form of copies of "Road Permit" and "Bahati Form". The assessee failed to produce the same. Further the assessee was also requested to produce Shri Vikash Kumar, Proprietor of Meet Enterprises for further investigation as all the letters sent at the address of M/s Meet Enterprises were returned unserved. Further the purchases claimed by the assessee also has not been reflected in the sales tax return of M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. Accordingly the ld. PCIT invoked his revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act for disallowing the remaining sum of Rs 33,35,500/-. 9. Before us, the ld. AR vehemently argued that the ld. AO had already made enquiries in the reassessment proceedings and had arrived at a possible view that only a sum of Rs 73,45,040/- need to be disallowed on account of purchases from M/s Meet Enterprises. He argued that once the ld. AO had taken a possible view, the same cannot be subject matter of revision by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act , merely because the ld. PCIT was of a different view. There is no quarrel on this proposition laid out by the ld. AR. But what is relevant to be seen in the instant case is as to what was the basis of ld. AO concluding to disallow the sum of Rs 73,45,040/-. It is not in dispute that the assessee had indeed made purchases from M/s Meet Enterprises to the tune of Rs 1,06,80,540/-. It is not in dispute that M/s Meet Enterprises was a non-existent firm. The ld. AO had relied on the findings recorded by the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court in the writ petition preferred by the assessee challenging the validity of notice u/s 148 of the Act, wherein the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
