9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g. 3. The assessee has challenged the revisionary order passed by the ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act on the ground of invalid exercise of jurisdiction for the reason that by the impugned revisionary order, the ld. Pr. CIT directed the Assessing Officer to hold another investigation when the Assessing Officer has already complied with the directions of the predecessor Pr. CIT by passing the order u/s 263 of the Act dt. 09/09/2016 in the first set aside revisionary proceedings. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 24/09/2012 declaring total income at Rs.1240/-. Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and assessment was accordingly framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.16/03/2015 assessing total income at Rs.6,21,01,240/- after making addition in respect of share capital/share premium. Thereafter the predecessor ld. Pr. CIT, exercised revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and vide order dt. 09/09/2016 setting aside the assessment framed vide order dt. 16/03/2015 directing the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment de novo. The Assessing Officer in the set aside proceedings accordingly gave effect to the order pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, therefore, the ld. Pr. CIT presumed that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the matter. Finally the assessment was revised by the ld. Pr. CIT on the ground that there was complete lack of enquiry as the Assessing Officer has failed to collect the full facts/information and thus the AO failed to take the case to a logical end. Accordingly, the ld. Pr. CIT directed the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the issue de novo and pass a fresh assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act as the earlier order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in accordance with provisions 2(c) of 263 of the Act. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted before us that this is the second round of revision under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not conducted any enquiry into the issues as pointed out by the ld. Pr. CIT. The ld. A/R contended that the said conclusion of ld. Pr. CIT is wrong and contrary to the facts on record as the Assessing Officer in the first set aside proceedings has conducted a detailed enquiry into the issue of share capital and share premium and thus th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bers/investors. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, prayed that the Assessing Officer, after examining all these issues and evidences, came to a conclusion that identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions were adequately proved and thus came to a reasoned conclusion to reduce the said amount from income of the assessee which stood added in the first round of assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dt. 16/03/2015. 6. The ld. D/R, on the other hand, strongly opposed the arguments proposed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee on the ground that there was a huge scam which occurred in Kolkata involving of giving accommodations in the form of unsecured loans, share capital/share premium and LTCG etc and assessee was beneficiary of such accommodation entries. The ld DR submitted that huge additions was made in the first round of assessment proceedings which culminated in the framing of assessment vide order dated 16/03/2015 which were deleted by the AO in the set aside proceedings pursuant to first revisionary order dated 09/09/2016. The ld. D/R submitted that the purpose enshrined in the provisions of sub-section 2(c) of Section 263 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pport of his arguments relied on the order in the case of Subhalaxmi ITA No. 1104/Kol/2014 and ITA No. 764 to 766/Kol/2014. The ld. D/R also submitted that the ld. Pr. CIT in the concluding paragraph has mentioned explanation 2(c) to Section 263 (1), which was a typographical mistake and it shall be read as 2(a) to Section 263 (1) of the Act. 8. The ld. D/R also referred to the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Amritrashi Infra (P) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [ITA No. 838/Kol/2019, dt. 12-8-2020], wherein the issue of first order u/s 263 of the Act being illegal and void ab initio was considered and it was held that subsequent orders were invalid and were not taken up for consideration. Finally, the ld. D/R prayed that the second revisionary proceedings may kindly be upheld by dismissing the appeal of the assessee as the same was exercised to examine the relief granted to the assessee in a wrongful manner. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records as placed before us. Undisputedly the facts are that in the first round of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act the, ld. Pr. CIT vide order dated 09.09.2016 set aside the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etailed enquiries and investigation and also after calling details from subscribers u/s 263 of the Act. Now the issue before us whether the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the ld. Pr. CIT to set aside the assessment framed u/s 143(3)/263 of the Act on the same issue on the ground of lack of enquiry into share capital/share premium which was examined in detail by the AO after calling for information/details from the assessee as well as from the subscribers u/s 133(6) of the Act and taking a plausible and plausible view thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 6,20,00,000/-. In our opinion this is not a case of no enquiry or lack of enquiry as the AO has made in enquiry and taken a view on the basis of examination of the evidences furnished by the assessee as well as by the subscribers. In our opinion, the PCIT cannot exercise the revisionary jurisdiction to set aside the assessment where the AO has conducted enquiries and taken a plausible view accepting the contentions of the assessee. In our opinion where the PCIT was of the view that AO has not conducted enquiry to come to the conclusion on the issue, then the ld. PCIT is duty bound to make an enquiry and reach a conclusion tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
