Tribunal overturns Commissioner's order, reinstates original assessment for disputed purchases.

The Tribunal overturned the Principal Commissioner's order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2009-10. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had conducted proper inquiries into the disputed purchases, including obtaining documentary evidence and confirmation from the selling party. Despite this, the Assessing Officer estimated the profit on alleged non-genuine purchases at 7%. The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner's decision lacked a factual basis as the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and conducted necessary inquiries. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the order under section 263 and restored the original assessment order in favor of the Assessee.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2009-10.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed challenging an order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on information received during a search operation, suspecting non-genuine purchases. The Assessing Officer estimated the profit on alleged non-genuine purchases at 7% and added it back to the income. The Principal Commissioner found the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue's interests, citing lack of proper inquiry and application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Principal Commissioner set aside the assessment order, directing a fresh assessment.

The Assessee contended that the Assessing Officer had made proper inquiries into the disputed purchases and passed the order after due application of mind. The Assessee argued that a similar transaction in a previous year had been accepted by the department without challenge under section 263. The Assessee also argued that the decision cited by the Principal Commissioner was irrelevant to the case.

The Departmental Representative supported the Principal Commissioner's observations, claiming the Assessing Officer's conclusions were contradictory and lacked proper application of mind. Referring to Explanation 2 of section 263(1) of the Act, the Departmental Representative argued that the Principal Commissioner was empowered to revise the assessment order.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had conducted thorough inquiries, including obtaining documentary evidence and confirmation from the selling party. Despite the confirmation, the Assessing Officer did not accept the purchases as genuine, estimating the profit at 7%. The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner's view lacked factual basis, as the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and made necessary inquiries. The Tribunal also noted that the Principal Commissioner did not provide specific directions for the fresh assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the order under section 263 and restored the assessment order, allowing the Assessee's appeal.

---