TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1011
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act on the basis of suspicion, conjecture and surmises is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. The order u/s 263 passed by the Pr. CIT is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction as detailed replies filed before the Pr. CIT, in response to the notice u/s 263, have not been considered while passing the final order. Hence the order u/s 263 is liable to be quashed. 3. That the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer ("AO") u/s 143(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue to the extent that no addition on account of alleged commission has been added. 4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Pr. CIT has erred on facts and in law in assuming jurisdiction u/s 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry operation for arranging the said accommodation entry". However no such observation is recorded by AO. 9. Without prejudice, that the direction given by the Pr. CIT are illegal, bad in law and also contrary. 10. That without prejudice, the Pr. CIT has wrongly and illegally held that the order passed by AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, when no independent enquiry has been made by Pr. CIT. Hence the notice issued U/s 263 and the order passed u/s 263 is illegal and bad in law 11. That the Pr. CIT has passed the order u/s 263 ignoring the evidence, documents filed by the assessee and material available on record. 12. That the explanations given, evidence produced, material place and available on record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... thereby have avoided payment of legitimate taxes. Hence, an amount of Rs. 2,53,91,809 (sale cost of Rander Corp. of Rs. 44,33,146/- and Effingo Textiles of Rs. 2,02,82,203 + purchase cost of Rander Corp. of Rs. 4,43,110/- and Efingo textiles of Rs. 2,33,350/-) is held to be bogus and accordingly disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee under the head "income from other sources". On the reasons mentioned above, I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income and furnished inaccurate particulars, hence, penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately. (Addition of Rs. 2,53,91,809/-) 3. The ld. AR submitted that the order u/s. 263 is not justified at all. During the course of assessment proceedings,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the alleged transactions, but the Assessing Officer has failed to consider and examine that in the case of bogus purchase and sale of shares, the element of commission payment is always involved and therefore, the Assessing Officer was in error in not making any addition towards unexplained commission for the above arrangement of capital gains. Therefore, the ld. PCIT was justified in setting aside the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the entire material available on record and also the case laws cited by both the parties. From the facts narrated above, the only question to be decided by us is whether the ld. PCIT was justified in rev....