9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the following grounds:- "1. The Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai - 1, (hereinafter referred to as the Principal CIT) erred in law and on facts in holding that the scrutiny assessment order dated 18-01-2021 passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 2. The Principal CIT erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue as a result of which the same cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. 3. The Principal CIT erred in not appreciating that revision jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be exercised when issues raised in his show cause notice were satisfactory replied to by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing." 3. In the present appeal, the assessee is aggrieved against the invocation of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act by the learned PCIT. 4. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record are: The assessee was formed as a joint venture vide partnership deed dated 26/05/2017 comprising of partners, namely Mr. Viren R. Shah (partner of Cimechel Electric Co.), Mr. Saumil V. Shah, and Mr. Umesh S. Munde (proprietor of M/s Umesh & Bros. Construction). The assessee is engaged in the business of electrical engineering, manufacturing, and trading in industrial goods and equipment, execution of large electro-mechanical and civil contracts, providing consultancy service, and advising on electro-mechanical engineering m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r scrutiny and various details were sought during the assessment proceedings vide notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, which was duly furnished by the assessee as per the requirement from time to time. It was further submitted that after being satisfied with the submissions filed by the assessee, the AO passed the assessment order accepting the income as per the return filed. It was further submitted that the assessee filed various details which include the partnership deed, partners' capital account, and the confirmation and source of capital introduced as well as relevant bank statements. The assessee also furnished certain information as required by the learned PCIT during the revisionary proceedings. 7. After considering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been working with his father, Mr. Viren R. Shah, in Cimechel Electric Co. From the record, it is evident that Cimechel Electric Co. is in the business since last 25 years. As per the assessee, it was awarded work from the Railway for overhead wiring. Since the assessee firm was new in the business and the work was highly technical and required a huge workforce, accordingly the same was sub-contracted to well-established Cimechel Electric Co. at the agreed rate since it had the ready infrastructure to cope with the job. 9. It is further evident from the record that the return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS due to the reason of the introduction of large capital or share capital in the year under consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 2017-18. Copy of Capital account of partners is attached herewith. The copies of Relevant Bank statement of M/s Cimechel Electric co from where the partners Mr Viren Shah and Saumil Shah has withdrawn the amount and introduced in the Firm as Capital. Annexure 4 and Annexure 5." 11. From the aforesaid details, we find that the assessee not only furnished the copy of the income tax return and the computation of income but also furnished the bank statement of the assessee highlighting the capital contribution made by the partners during the year, the ledger account of the partners in the books of the assessee as well as bank statement of partners highlighting payment made to the assessee. Therefore, from the perusal of the aforesaid doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtners in the assessee firm, during the assessment proceedings. From the perusal of the notices issued by the AO and the reply filed by the assessee, we find that this issue was specifically raised during the scrutiny assessment proceedings and the same was duly replied to by the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that this aspect was not examined by the AO. We find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Reliance Communication Ltd, [2016] 69 taxmann.com 103 (Bombay) held that the fact that the AO did not make any reference in the assessment order cannot make the order erroneous when the issues were indeed looked into. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
