Tribunal allows appeal, emphasizes no penalty for rep's ignorance, deems AO's inquiries adequate, quashes revision order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing that the assessee should not be penalized for the Authorized Representative's ignorance. Regarding the legitimacy of the revisional jurisdiction exercised under Section 263, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted adequate inquiries into alleged bogus purchases, accepting them as genuine based on confirmations and payment evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's actions were reasonable, quashing the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263 and allowing the appeals of the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Legitimacy of the revisional jurisdiction exercised under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's (AO) inquiry into alleged bogus purchases.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appeal was filed with a delay of 194 days. The assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) was unaware that the order passed under Section 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) was appealable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). Upon consulting a senior counsel, the assessee realized the possibility of an appeal and filed it within 10 days after handing over the brief to the counsel. The Tribunal condoned the delay, referencing the Supreme Court decision in 167 ITR 471 (SC), and opined that the assessee should not be penalized for the AR's ignorance.

2. Legitimacy of the Revisional Jurisdiction Exercised Under Section 263:
The main grievance was against the Pr. CIT's action of exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263. The Pr. CIT issued a show cause notice (SCN) stating that the AO did not properly verify the transportation and delivery of goods allegedly purchased from bogus dealers. The Pr. CIT set aside the AO's reassessment order and directed further investigation into the transportation and delivery of the goods.

3. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's Inquiry into Alleged Bogus Purchases:
The AO initially conducted an assessment under Section 143(3) and later reopened the assessment under Section 147 based on information from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department about bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 4.43 crores. The AO made inquiries, issued notices under Section 133(6), and added 2.25% over the gross profit (GP) shown by the assessee on the alleged bogus purchases.

The Tribunal noted that the AO had made adequate inquiries during the reassessment proceedings. The assessee provided details of purchases, including the mode of delivery and transportation, which were "Free Delivery by Truck." The AO accepted the purchases as genuine based on confirmations from vendors and payments made through account payee cheques.

The Tribunal emphasized the difference between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry." It held that if the AO made inquiries, even if inadequate, it would not justify the Pr. CIT's interference under Section 263. The Pr. CIT should have conducted his own investigation and recorded clear findings if he deemed the AO's inquiry insufficient.

The Tribunal referenced the Calcutta High Court's decision in CIT Vs J.L. Morrison (I) Ltd (366 ITR 593) and the Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT-7 Vs. M/s. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 9604-9605 of 2018, which upheld the view that only the profit element of bogus purchases should be added when payments are made through banking channels and sales are accepted.

The Tribunal concluded that the AO's action of adding 2.25% over the GP shown by the assessee was a plausible view and not unsustainable in law. The Pr. CIT's direction to investigate transportation charges was found to be erroneous, as the assessee had not claimed any transportation expenses.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263, holding that the AO's reassessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It allowed the appeals of the assessee.

---