TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 1210
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trary to the provisions of law and facts on record. Hence, the proceedings initiated under s. 263 of the Act and the impugned order dt. 5th March, 2013 kindly be quashed. 4. The learned CIT, Kota erred in law as well as on the fact of the case in ignoring the various facts, submissions with regard to five cash creditors and the decision/s binding upon him and hence, the impugned order kindly be quashed. 5. The learned CIT, Kota erred in law as well as on the fact of the case in holding that the subjected assessment order dt. 29th Oct., 2010 under s. 143(3) of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue which is contrary to the provisions of law and facts and hence, the impugned order kindly be quashed. 6. The appellant prays your Honour's indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing." 2. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the action of the learned CIT under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' in short) in quashing the assessment order dt. 29th Oct., 2010 passed by the AO under s. 143(3) of the Act considering the same as erron....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the show-cause notice itself. Shri Ashok Kumar Agrawal and Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta arc regularly assessed with ITO, Ward-3 and copies of IT returns of them were filed during assessment proceedings. With regard to Shri Yogesh Bansal, the learned AO required to file copy of his balance sheet for financial year 2008-09 along with copy of cash book for the period from 1st April, 2007 to 7th April, 2007 (showing available cash balance which was deposited into bank on different dates) which was duly furnished by the assessee. For all other creditors necessary details were furnished as required by the learned AO. After satisfying himself the learned AO treated the cash creditors as genuine. Since the matter was duly examined by the learned AO, the revision of the order on this account should not be called for. Further, since the matter narrated by your Honour was duly examined by the learned AO during assessment proceeding the order passed by the learned AO is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The proceedings under s. 263 cannot be initiated simply to cause enquiries. The contention of the assessee may be substantiated from the following decisions : CIT v.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), Sawai Madhopur in his letter dt. 2nd Sept., 2011 vide which action under s. 263 was proposed that the assessce had shown the following cash creditors : Shri Ghanshyam Lal Gupta Rs. 90,000 Shri Rupcsh Mittal Rs. 50,000 Shri Yogesh Bansal Rs. 1,00,000 Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta Rs. 90,000 Shri Ashok Kumar Agarwal Rs. 1,00,000 6. He also pointed out that though statements of the above-mentioned creditors were recorded by the AO and the copies of bank accounts had been obtained, but it was found that before transferring the amount in assessee's bank account, similar amount had been deposited in cash within 2-3 days by these creditors. Therefore, creditworthiness of these creditors was not proved. Learned CIT was of the view that the assessment order passed under s. 143(3) of the Act was without due and proper enquiry and calls for further enquiry. He, accordingly set aside the assessment order with a direction to the AO to frame it de novo after making proper verification and enquiry. Now the assessee is in appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in the present case assessment was framed under s. 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter, AO moved a propos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) (16) Kamal Kumar Gupta v. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 28 (Jaipur) (17) CIT v. Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 180/[2011] 196 Taxman 368/8 taxmann.com 128 (Delhi) (18) CIT v. Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust [1987] 167 ITR 129/31 Taxman 335 (19) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (20) CIT v. Leisure Veer Exports Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 166/[2011] 11 taxmann.com 54/202 Taxman 130 (Delhi) (21) Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) (22) Honda Siel Powra Products Ltd. (supra) (23) CIT v. Emery Stone Mfg. Co. [1995) 213 ITR 843/83 Taxman 643 (Raj.). 8. In his rival submissions, learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the impugned order passed by the learned CIT and further submitted that the AO did not make proper enquiries while passing the assessment order. Therefore, the assessment order was not only erroneous but also prejudieial to the interest of the Revenue. 9. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully ; gone through the material available on record. In the present case, it is abundantly clear from para-2-of the impugned order that the 1TO, Ward-3, ....