AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds raised in 1. The Order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) (Central), Bangalore passed under section 263 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant's case. 2. The learned PCIT was not justified in law and facts to set aside the assessment order dated 31/3/2016 and direct the assessing officer to make a de novo assessment on the facts and circumstance of the case. 3. The learned PCIT was not justified in passing an order under section 263 of the Act, as the order passed under section 143(3)r.w.s 153A of the Act , was pursuant to proper enqui ry on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The order of revision has been passed in violation of the principles of natura1 justice, as the order has been passed without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and thus the order is required to be set aside on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The order of revision passed by the learned PCIT is also in violation of Principles of natural justice as the details requested by the appellant have not been given to the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urisdiction under section 263 of the Act on the facts and circumstance of the case. d) The learned PCIT, failed to appreciate that the information was verified by multiple governmental agencies and a mere typographical error while collating the details in a chart cannot lead to an inference that the order is erroneous on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Grounds regarding verification of Gross Losses: a) The learned PCIT erred in holding that there has been gross loss in the main unit which is contrary to the material on record as there is no gross loss in the main uni t and consequent ly passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstance of the case. Without prejudice the contention of the learned PCIT is arithmetically incorrect and consequently the impugned order is liable to be set aside. b) The learned PCIT has erroneously arrived at the Gross losses by conveniently ignoring certain operational income and not considering all the material on record and thus the very subst ratum of the numbers adopted by her are total ly erroneous and consequently the order of the learned PCIT is liable to be set aside on the facts and circumstance of the case. c) The lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the facts and circumstances of the case. j) The learned PCIT has lost track of the detailed questionnaire issued during the assessment and that the details furnished by the appellant are all part of the assessment order and thus the jurisdiction to invoke section 263 does not arise on the facts of the case. k) The learned PCIT failed to appreciate that the various divisions of the company have different methods of business transactions and consequently the gross profits would be different. l) The learned PCIT failed to appreciate that the assessment has been completed after thoroughly examining all the details more than 5 years back vide order dated 30/12/2011 which was further examined in detail while passing the 143(3) order read with 153A and consequently on the same point there cannot be proceedings under section 263. m) Without prejudice the issue of gross loss does not arise out of any seized material and consequently is beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A read with 143(3) of the Act. n) The learned PCIT is not justified in indirectly attempting to reopen the assessment order under section 143(3) dated 30.12.2011 after a lapse of more than 5 years wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was completed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) in all these assessment years on 31.03.2016 after making necessary verifications on different issues. In all these years, the AO made certain additions against which appeals were filed by the assessee before the CIT (A). After completion of the assessment, the AO received a communication from Forex Tax Authorities vide its letter dated 18.04.2016 with regard to Basma Jewellers, UAE from whom assessee claimed to have made purchases of gold bars. As per the claim of the assessee, it had imported gold bars from Basma Jewellers from assessment year 2007-08 to 2013-14 whereas as per the information received from Basma Jewellers, it was incorporated only in financial year 2010-11. Therefore, claim of the assessee needs verification. The AO forwarded this letter to the CIT (A) before whom the appeals were pending and CIT(A) has confronted this communication to the assessee and sought his comments. 3. Assessee submitted its detailed reply stating therein that the information submitted by it during assessment proceedings contained a typographical error where the names of the parties from whom import was done were wrongly typed inadvertently.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....., were examined by the AO in the original assessment proceedings framed under section 143(3) of the Act. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the various notices issued by the AO and the evidences filed by the assessee during the course of original assessment proceedings. 6. Having examined the details furnished by the assessee in the original assessment proceedings, the AO has accepted the claim of the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the AO has not applied his mind to the facts of the case or the controversies raised before it. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the order of the AO wherein the AO has discussed the issue in detail before accepting the claim. 7. So far as purchase from Basma Jewellers is concerned, the learned counsel for the assessee has contended that assessee has made the purchases from AJR Mathey but unfortunately, on account of typographical error, the name of Basma Jewellers was mentioned. He has filed a reconciliation statement before the CIT (A), but CIT(A), instead of getting it verified by himself or through AO, disposed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vanlal (1929) Ltd., Vs. ACIT 108 ITR 407 in support of this contention that on the basis of the audit objection, revision under section 263 is not possible. The learned counsel for the assessee has also invited our attention to the fact that during the course of search, no incriminating material was found either with regard to carry forward of brought forward losses/profits of different units of the assessee. Therefore, there was no occasion with the AO to readjudicate the issues again in the proceedings under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. He however examined the claim of deductions under section 10B of the Act. When the AO was not under the obligation to readjudicate, the issue of profit and loss of different units as no incriminating material was found during the course of search, the order passed by him cannot be called to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 9. The learned DR, on the other hand has placed reliance upon the order of the CIT. 10. Having carefully examined the orders of the lower authorities in the light of rival submissions, we find that the CIT has set aside the order having invoked the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....these units were also examined by the AO while dealing with the issue of setoff of brought forward losses before computing the income under section 10AA of the Act. In the original assessment order passed on 30.12.2010 and 30.12.2011, the AO has discussed the issue in detail with regard to income and losses of different units after obtaining information from the assessee. Since the issue of income and losses of different units were thoroughly examined by the AO in the original assessment proceedings, there was no need to readjudicate or to re-examine all these evidences in subsequent proceedings. Therefore, the AO has not discussed these issues in detail in subsequent proceedings framed consequent to the search. 11. We have also examined the contentions raised by the assessee that the AO was under no obligation to examine the issue of deduction or the losses suffered by the non eligible unit as no incriminating material was found during the course of search, as these issues were already adjudicated by the AO in the original assessment framed before the search. In this regard, it has been repeatedly held by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court particularly in the ....