TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1072
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The delay of 41 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. ITA Nos. 637/2017, 507/2017, 508/2017 & 509/2017 3. The revenue is in appeal against the common order dated 18th November 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA Nos. 3452 to 3455/Del/2006 for the Assessment Years ('AY') 2008-09 to 2011-12. 4. The above appeals were preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 31st March 2015 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ['PCIT'] under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') revising the assessment order dated 28th March 2013 passed by the Assessing Officer ('AO') under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act for each of the aforementioned AYs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecured loans outstanding in the financial year but not confirmed, copies of ledger accounts of unsecured loans, copies of agreements etc. The Assessee also replied to a further SCN by its letters dated 14th March 2013 and 20th March 2013. Summons under Section 131(1) of the Act were issued by the AO to the Director of the Assessee and his statement was also recorded. An assessment order dated 28th March 2013 was passed assessing the income as returned by the Assessee. 9. It appears that on 5th June 2013, i.e. within 3 months from the date of the assessment order, the AO made a proposal to the CIT for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act regarding the order "erroneously passed" by the AO. In this letter, inter alia, the AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In the impugned order, the ITAT, after examining the entire record and the applicable law on the subject, has come to the conclusion that on both the issues, i.e. payment of interest over and above the amount which was recorded in the books of accounts and the sundry creditors, the Assessee had furnished sufficient details with which the AO was satisfied. This was not a case of lack of enquiry on the part of the AO but, at most, a case of inadequate inquiry, as appeared from the letter dated 5th June 2013 addressed to the PCIT. It was held by the ITAT that the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act could not be allowed "merely on the basis that enquiry conducted by the AO was inadequate." 13. Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, learned Senior Standing....