2019 (4) TMI 1777

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fficer exercising his revision powers u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 3. There is a delay of 265 days in filing the present appeal. A separate application has been moved for Condonation of Delay which has also been supported with the affidavit of Shri Amarjit Garg, partner of the assessee firm. It has been explained in the application that the tax matters of the assessee firm were looked into by his counsel namely Shri Varinder Garg, Advocate. That the partners of the assessee firm were not well-versed with the procedure and technicalities of the tax matters and were dependent on the counsel, Shri Varinder Garg. That when the notice of the proceedings u/s 263 was received by the assessee, the same was sup....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lso invited our attention to the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act to submit that even the earlier counsel did not the appear before the PCIT in the proceedings carried out u/s 263 of the Act and that the said order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act was an ex-parte order. The averments made in the application have been further corroborated with the affidavit of Shri Amarjit Garg, partner of the assessee firm. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further relied on the two decisions of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, firstly, the decision of Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal dated 22.11.2018 in the case of 'Sahalbuddin Quadiri Vs. DCIT' ITA No. 1617/Kol//2016 and secondly on the decision dated 3.12.2018 of the Mumbai Bench of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... We order accordingly. 7. Now coming to the merits of the case. The Ld. PCIT noted from the assessment order that the assessee had claimed expenditure of Rs. 1,59,45,020/- in the trading account as 'land cost'. He further noted that while purchasing the said land, out of total consideration, the assessee had made cash payment of Rs. 73,68,000/- twice vide receipt Nos. 2065 & 2066 respectively on 9.8.2011 to the seller. Further, from the perusal of the ledger account, the Ld. PCIT noted that the assessee had made cash payment of Rs. 62,762/- on account of expenditure in respect of 'Job Work charges' to M/s Dhiman Aluminum and Interior Decorator on 3.3.2012 and Building Material to other two parties. He, therefore, held that as per the pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....however, the case was later selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS to verify the large increase in unsecured loans raised during the year. The enquiries of the Ld. Assessing officer were, therefore, limited to the aspect of the genuineness and verification of unsecured loans, the details and explanation regarding which were duly supplied to the Assessing officer and the Assessing officer being satisfied with the evidences given by the assessee competed the assessment at the returned loss of Rs. 10,21,815/- That neither the Assessing officer was authorised nor there was any occasion to the Assessing officer to scrutinize and make enquiries, about the other factors of the case as it was a limited scrutiny assessment case, hence, the enq....