Tribunal quashes PCIT's order under Section 263, finding AO's inquiries sufficient.

The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263, holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted adequate inquiries. The Tribunal found that the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It was concluded that the PCIT failed to provide any incriminating evidence to support the receipt of on-money, and the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the order passed under Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the assessment order dated 30-03-2015 under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Adequacy of the inquiries made by the Assessing Officer.
4. Verification of the genuineness of sundry creditors.
5. Application of Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of the order passed under Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) issued a Show Cause Notice on 14.02.2017, citing that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to make adequate inquiries regarding an Agreement to Sell and the minutes of the Board Meeting of Great Value Infra Promoters Private Limited. The PCIT concluded that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The PCIT's order was based on the assertion that the AO had not made independent inquiries from the concerned parties and had accepted the submissions made by the assessee without further verification.

2. Validity of the assessment order dated 30-03-2015 under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The AO reopened the case under Section 153C based on documents found during a search and seizure operation at the premises of M/s Godwin Group of Cases. The AO issued notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) and conducted inquiries, including issuing show cause notices to the assessee. The AO concluded that no addition could be made based on the photocopy of the Agreement to Sell, which did not bear the signatures of the assessee. The AO also considered the minutes of the Board Meeting but found no evidence of any on-money payment over and above the sale consideration mentioned in the Agreements.

3. Adequacy of the inquiries made by the Assessing Officer:
The AO conducted inquiries by issuing show cause notices and obtaining responses from the assessee. The AO concluded that the alleged document (Agreement to Sell) was a photocopy and did not bear the signatures of the assessee. The AO also considered the minutes of the Board Meeting of Great Value Infra but found no evidence of any on-money payment. The Tribunal noted that the AO had made adequate inquiries and that the PCIT's assertion that more inquiries were required was not justified.

4. Verification of the genuineness of sundry creditors:
The PCIT held that the AO failed to verify the genuineness of sundry creditors, which was not raised in the Show Cause Notice. The Tribunal found that the AO had made adequate inquiries and that the PCIT's assertion was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted the return of income filed by the assessee after making adequate inquiries.

5. Application of Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Tribunal noted that Explanation 2 to Section 263, inserted by the Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015, provides that an order would be deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue if the order was passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been done. However, the Tribunal found that the AO had made adequate inquiries and verification. The Tribunal also referred to judicial precedents, including the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Brahma Centre Development Private Limited, which held that Explanation 2 to Section 263 is only prospective in nature.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263, holding that the AO had made adequate inquiries and that the PCIT's assertion of inadequate inquiry was not justified. The Tribunal found that the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and that the PCIT had failed to prove any incriminating evidence to support the receipt of on-money. The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee.

---