TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 772
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eply. It was contended that the Ld. Assessing Officer made the addition, which was restricted to 12.5% by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and that also was deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated 28/10/2016 (ITA NO.4040, 4041 and 4042/Mum/2016) for Assessment Year 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. The crux of the argument is that the assessment order was framed as single/a unit, therefore, the subsequent information with respect to remaining four parties cannot be a good ground for invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner. It was submitted that the Ld. Pr. CIT wrongly invoked revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act as the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the assessment order was framed after due application of mind and considering the factual matrix and further unjustifiably directed the Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment. It was contended that it may be case of inadequate enquiry but there is difference between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry. The factual matrix that bogus purchases were made from the remaining four parties was never contradicted by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gross profit of 12.5% was deleted. 2.3. Later on, the Ld. Assessing Officer received information from the ADIT that the assessee also made purchases from the parties which are mentioned in table number-1. The Ld. Pr. Commissioner found that the purchases made from the parties mentioned in table no.1 were not examined by the Assessing Officer, during assessment proceedings and it was also found that these parties provided accommodation entries to the assessee without carrying on any business transactions. It was also claimed that this factual matrix was brought to the notice of the assessee by way of show cause notice served upon the assessee and also during hearing. There is a finding in the revisional order that the Ld. Assessing Officer did not make any enquiry with respect to alleged purchases totaling to Rs. 2,30,89,345/- from these four parties. The Ld. DR, before us specifically pointed out that even these four parties were never considered by the Tribunal in its order and thus the fact remained that no enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer with respect to these four parties, meaning thereby, the Ld. Assessing Officer totally overlooked the matter to the extent of rema....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal. [Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), an order in revision under this section may be passed at any time in the case of an order which has been passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r dated 13/05/2016 and the ratio laid down therein supports the case of the Revenue. It is noteworthy that while coming to a particular conclusion, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court considered following judicial pronouncements:- i. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) (para 3), ii. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329/212 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi) (para 7), vii. DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 35 ITR 388/219 Taxman 105/38 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi) (para 7), viii. CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287/59 Taxman 568 (Delhi) (para 8), ix. CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98/70 Taxman 69 (Delhi) (FB) (para 8), x. CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268/[2007] 158 Taxma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66 (SC) (para 18), xxxv. CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282/166 Taxman 188 (SC) (para 18), xxxvi. CIT v. Maithan International [2015] 375 ITR 123/231 Taxman 381/56 taxmann.com 283 (Cal.) (para 20), xxxvii. CIT v. Navodaya Castles (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 306/226 Taxman 190/50 taxmann.com 110 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxviii. CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2013] 214 Taxman 408/29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxix. CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583/[1993] 69 Taxman 281 (Cal.) (para 20), xl. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434/209 Taxman 174/24 taxmann.com 215 (Gau.) (FB) (para 20) and xli. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) (para 27). 2.7. So far as, the cases in favour of the assessee, like CIT vs Nirav Modi (2016) 71 taxman.com 272 (Bom.) is concerned, the factual finding is that the Assessing Officer after making proper and detailed enquiries took a particular view, whereas, in the present appeal proper enquiry was not made by the Assessing Officer, therefore, this judicial pronouncements may not help the assessee. Similar is the po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....993) 203 ITR 108, 114 (Bom.), ix. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), x. Nabha Investments Pvt. ltd. vs UOI (2000) 246 ITR 41 (Del.), xi. Bismillah Trading Company Ltd. vs IO (2001) 248 ITR 292, 308 (Kerala), xii. Paul Mathews & Sons vs CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101, 113 (Kerala), xiii. CIT vs Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490, 500 (Mad.), xiv. Rayon Silk Mills vs CIT 221 ITR 155 (Guj.) 2.9. If the aforesaid judicial pronouncements are kept in juxtaposition with the facts of the present appeal and analyzed, the ld. Assessing Officer has not gone into the aspects, as has been observed in the impugned order and the information received from the investigation wing was not properly investigated. It is also noted that the Ld. Assessing Officer did not make any enquiry with respect to remaining four parties from where the assessee claim to have made bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 2,30,89,345/-. It is also noted that these parties filed an affidavit before the Sales Tax Authorities that they were involved in bogus transactions/bogus sales, without effecting the actual delivery of goods. The asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... (200) 243 ITR 795 (Del.). Totality of facts, clearly indicates that the assessment order has been framed without full enquiries, therefore, the ld. Commissioner justifiably invoked revisional jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 77 taxman.com 285 (SC), wherein, there was lack 16 of requisite enquiry into increase of share capital and nonapplication of mind, the Commissioner was held to be justified in invoking the revisional jurisdiction, which is reproduced hereunder:- "Section 68, read with section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share application money) - Assessment year 2009-10 - During relevant year, assessee-company had increased its share capital by issuing 7.93 lakhs shares of Rs. 10 each at a premium of Rs. 390 - Assessing Officer completed assessment without holding requisite investigation except for calling for records - Commissioner passed order under section 263 and opined that this could be a case of money laundering which went undetected due to lack of requisite enquiry into increase of share capital including premium received by assessee and nonapplication of mind - High Court by impugned order h....