9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" in short], for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income for AY 2013-14 was filed by the assessee on 22.09.2013 declaring a total income of Rs. 83,72,000/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act with the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021. The revised assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 21.03.2022 and the return of income as shown by the assessee was accepted. The assessment record was subsequently called for by the ld. PCIT wherein he noticed that the issue on which the case was reopened was not properly examined by the AO. The case was reopened to examine the accom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside accordingly. 3. The learned Pr. C.I.T. has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer has not verified the issue of accommodation entries amounting to Rs. 35.04,500/-. It is submitted that the case being reopening of assessment had reopened on ground of accommodation entries in form of fictitious loan received of Rs 35,04,500/- and after verification of objection filed against such reopening and after due application of mind, the Ld. AO has passed the order accepting the contention of the Appellant. It is therefore submitted that is no question of any lack of inquiry or verification on the part of assessing officer and further under assessment of income. In view of this, order passed u/s 263 being totally illegal and unjustifiable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act are itself illegal and unjustifiable in the eyes of law. The same be held accordingly. 6. The order passed by the learned Pr. C.I.T.is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law and facts. It is submitted that the same be held so now. 7. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any of the grounds before the final hearing." 4. Shri Sulabh Padshah, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the issue on which the case was reopened was duly examined by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings. He had drawn our attention to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 28.01.2022 issued by the Assessing Officer, wherein the reason for reopening was reproduced and the assessee was required to make the submissions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2023) 4. CIT vs Kamal Galani (Guj. HC) (Order Dt 11-06-2018) 5. PCIT vs Klaxon Trading Pvt Ltd (Delhi HC) (Order Dt 29-11- 2023) 6. PCIT Vs Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalp Ltd (Bombay HC) ( Order Dt 5- 8-2022) 7. Ahlcon Parenterals (India) Ltd Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) (Order Dt 21-05- 2024) 8. Shri Jignesh Lilachand Shah Vs PCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) (ITA No. 149/Ahd/2021) (Order Dt 21-3-2023) 5. Per contra, Shri Sudhendu Das, ld. CIT-DR, submitted that the ld. PCIT had given a categorical finding that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous since the information available in the "Insight Portal" of the Department was not properly examined by the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment. He strongly relied upon the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings. The assessee had denied the alleged transaction and thereafter no evidence was brought on record by the Assessing Officer to establish the alleged transaction on the basis of which the case was reopened. No evidence in respect of the alleged transaction was provided to the assessee as requested by him. The AO had, in essence, accepted the reply of the assessee that there was no such transaction. Under these circumstances, the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 7. In the course of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act as well, the assessee had denied having made any transaction with Shri Rajiv Shah or Jignesh Shah or Sanjay Shah Group as referred in the notice issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 263 of the Act stipulates that the order of the AO will be deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, if such order is passed without making enquiries for verifications which should have been made or if the order is passed allowing any relief without enquiring into the claim. This condition is not found fulfilled in this case as the AO had made detailed inquiries on the issue of accommodation entry which was denied by the assessee and no further evidence was brought on record to establish the said alleged transaction. It was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. - (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) that one has to see from the records as to whether there was application of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
