9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short 'the ld. PCIT'), which is invalid and is barred by limitation in terms of Provisions of Section 263(2) of the Act also. 03. The facts in brief are that the return of income was filed on 24.10.2017, declaring a total income of Rs. 10,10,590/-, which was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) on account cash deposited during the demonetization period. Accordingly, the statutory notices along with questionnaire were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading of biri leaves and tobacco under the name of M/S Usuf Trading Co. During the assessment proceeding the assessee was required to file various evidences which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T observed from the assessment record that an aggregate amount of Rs. 5,70,386/-, was paid to the transporters in cash in a single day where the amount exceeded Rs. 35,000/- per transporter which is in contravention with Section 40A(3) of the Act. The ld. PCIT therefore concluded that Rs. 5,70,386/-liable to be disallowed as expenses in the order passed u/s 263/ 143(3) of the Act which has rendered the said order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and accordingly, revised the same vide order dated 27.12.2024, directing the ld. AO to verify these expenses claimed and disallow the expenses which are in contravention of Provision of Section 40A(3) of the Act. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the order pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed beyond the time framed provided u/s 263 of the Act which provides that no order u/s 263(1) of the Act shall be passed after expiry of 2 years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. The ld. AR submitted that the revision of order by the ld. PCIT passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 06.03.2023 was wrong and invalid as the issue of payment of freight expenses in violation of provision of Section 40A(3)/3A of the Act was not there and therefore, the same could be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. At the most, the PCIT could have revised the original assessment dated 05.12.2019, which was original assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act and should have been a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
