AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 782
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 125 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is heard on merits. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. For that the order of the forum below is arbitrary, unjust in and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case and liable to be quashed. 2. For that Ld. Commissioner of Income tax erred in holding the trade creditors as cash creditors. Therefore the order passed u/s 263 of the Income tax is non application of mind and liable to be quashed. 3. For that in course of assessment Ld ITO called for information from each and every trade creditors as per the details provided by the Assesee and thereafter Ld. A.O has passe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT found that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and issued notice. Further the Pr.CIT after considering the submissions of assessee and findings of the AO has set aside the assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act to the AO for fresh adjudication. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Pr.CIT the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the order passed by the Pr. CIT is contrary to law and the facts and also cannot be accepted. Ld. AR submitted there is adequate enquiry made by the AO in the assessment proceedings by issuing notice u/s.142(1) of the Act and the assessee complied with questionnaires and also submitted following judicial decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nquired regarding sundry creditors to the extent of Rs. 17,38,511/- and has not recorded his findings in the assessment order. The observations of the Pr. CIT at page 3 of the revision order read as under :- "I have gone through the facts of the case and the contention of behalf of the assessee filed by the A/R has been carefully considered. It appears that the submission of the A/R is not factually correct in so far as the claim of confirmations given to the AO in respect of all the sundry creditors during the assessment proceedings. In certain cases of sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 17,38,511/-, the AO is found not to have examined or conducted any enquiry. Even in respect of those creditors where confirmation letters and other detai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been inserted u/s 263(1) wherein it is clarified that an order passed by the AO shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner/ Commissioner, the order is passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made. Moreover, In CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. (Kar) 341 ITR 293, order passed u/s.263 was upheld even though the order does not make it explicit as to the manner in which it is erroneous or prejudicial since revisionary power can be exercised if the CIT considers the subject order to be revised - Assessing Officer performs a quasi-judicial function and the reason for his conclusions and findings should be forthcoming in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndry creditors and finally the AO has passed the order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings and as envisaged by the ld. AR the assessee has filed an appeal against the order of AO passed u/s.143(3)/263 of the Act. 11. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kailash Prasad Jain Vs. CIT, [2011] 202 Taxman 244 (Calcutta) has observed in para 18 of the order which reads as under :- "18. Dr. Pal's client approached the Tribunal challenging the order passed under section 263 and even did not pray for any interim relief for stay of operation of the said order and allowed the order of assessment to be passed. Ultimately an appeal wa....