TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) dated 23.12.2014 was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue even though the Assessing Officer has failed to make adequate enquiry in the original assessment order passed ? and 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in quashing the revisional order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act especially when the Assessing Officer had passed the order without making proper enquirie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 03.1.2019 was put to challenge before the Tribunal, which was set aside by the order impugned in this appeal. 7. It is submitted that the Tribunal failed to take note that the original assessee's financial position was distorted and he camouflaged certain transactions to bring in ostensible source for the increase in capital, that the shares held by the original assessee in M/s.Avanti Leathers Limited, which were shown as the source for increase in capital, were actually allotted in the financial year 2002-03 to 2007-08 and that the same were not disclosed as investment in the respective assessment year. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that the PCIT had explicitly brought out in his order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal, the PCIT did not point out anything specifically as to how the assessment order dated 23.12.2016 was erroneous. After rendering a finding on such aspect, the PCIT was required to render a finding that it was also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 11. The reason for selecting the case for limited scrutiny through CASS was to consider two issues namely were (i) substantial increase in capital in a year; and (ii) the sale consideration of the property in the income tax return was less than the sale consideration of the property reported in AIR. These issues were considered by the Assessing Officer and after perusal of documents, verification of the income tax returns of the assessee and making enquiries with the limited ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e us. The decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Maithan International, was with regard to the genuineness of a loan taken by the assessee from various creditors and the power under Section 263 of the Act was invoked on the ground that the Assessing Officer merely went by the bank statements and the and letter of confirmation. The Court held that the Assessing Officer was required to enquire the credit worthiness of the creditors. No such situation arises in the case on hand. Therefore, this decision is not only distinguishable on facts, but also does not render any assistance to the Revenue. 14. In the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd., the Court had considered the fac....