TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 1078
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt year 2004-05. The effective grounds of appeal are as under: "1. The learned CIT has erred in passing the order u/s.263 of the Act treating the assessment order u/s.143 for A.Y.2004-05 passed by the A.O. as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue on the ground that the same was completed without carrying out necessary inquiries. The learned CIT having not properly considered and appreciated the submissions of the appellant filed before him, the impugned order u/s.263 of the Act requires to be quashed as bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. It is contended that the appellant having produced relevant material and offered explanations in pursuance of the notices issued u/s.142(1) and 143(2) of the Act in respect of the issues in ques....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so changed the head of income from business income to investment u/s. 69B for Rs. 3,11,422/-. The ld. CIT, Ahmadabad, found this assessment prejudicial to the interest of revenue and erroneous. Thus, he gave the show cause notice vide letter dated 03.02.2009, which was replied by the assessee. The show cause notice was issued with reference to investment made in sales at Rs. 53,70,000/- and on no interest had been disallowed by the A.O. and disclosure made u/s. 133A at Rs. 3,11,427/- neutralized by the assessee by debiting the purchase account. The ld. CIT observed that the assessee's own fund as well as borrowed fund are mixed up and the A.O. did not make any verification in this regard. It was also not examined whether the said capital of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... necessary inquiry. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT, the assessee carried the matter before us. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contended that the A.O. had considered both the issues and raised query vide letter dated 13th July, 2006, 24th October, 2006 & 23rd November, 2006 which were replied by the assessee vide letter dated 18.11.2006 and argued that the material and explanation was available on record before the A.O. and ld. A.O. had come to a definite conclusion and a particular view was taken. The mere fact of the ld. CIT was of a different view cannot form a basis for action for revision of the assessment order. Thus, revision made u/s. 263 is bad in law. He relied upon in case of CIT Vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502....