2020 (11) TMI 820

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s are of even date i.e. 23rd March 2018. The grounds of appeal in all the three Assessment Years are identical and the issue raised in the appeals, emanate from same set of facts. Therefore, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are narrated from the appeal in ITA No. 2340/Mum/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. Shri M Subramanian, appearing on behalf of the assessee narrating the facts of case submitted that the assessee is a dealer in diamonds. The assessee is also engaged in import and export of diamonds. On the basis of search conducted on Bhanwarlal Jain group on 03.10.2013, the assessment for Assessment Year 2011-12 was reopened. It ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pened on the basis of information received from investigation Wing regarding assessee's alleged involvement in obtaining accommodation entries from Bhanwarlal Jain group. It was alleged that the assessee had obtained accommodation entries to the tune of Rs.18,08,24,885/-. The learned AR referred to the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment under section 147 at page 41 and 42 of the paper book. The learned AR submitted that once the assessment has been reopened and the investigation has been conducted by the Assessing Officer and on the basis of such investigation Assessing Officer framed the assessment order, the PCIT cannot invoke jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act on the' ground that proper enquiries were not made by the Ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... revisional powers despite the fact that the assessee had already filed appeal against the estimation of GP at higher side by the Assessing Officer. Once, the assessment order is under appeal on an issue, it is not open to PCIT under section 263 of the Act to invoke revisional jurisdiction on the same issue. The Ld. AR referred to Explanation 1 (3) to Sec 263 (1) to support his arguments. The learned AR prayed for quashing the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, Shri K. Madhusudan representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer while passing assessment order has not conducted investigations. The Assessing Officer merely presumed that the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... twin conditions mandated under the section are satisfied, i.e: (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. It is only with these two conditions are satisfied, the provisions of section 263 of the Act can be invoked. Merely, for the reason the that PCIT does not concur with the view of Assessing Officer, does not give powers to the PCIT to invoke revisional jurisdiction. In the instant case, we find that the Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings made investigations and came to the conclusion that the assessee has not been able to link all purchases made from concerns belonging to Bhanwarlal Jain group to its sales. The Asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n record and considering various judicial pronouncements. The Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views by making reasonable assumption that the assessee might have procured the goods from grey market. This assumption has been accepted by the Tribunal in various decisions where the revenue has accepted the sales/ turnover corresponding to alleged bogus purchases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) in an unambiguous manner has held that where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views to which CIT does not agree, this would not make the assessment order erroneous. The relevant extract of the judgement by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CIT invoked the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act for identical reasons. The learned Departmental Representative concurred with the statement made by the learned AR for the assessee. 11. Since, the facts germane to the appeal for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are peri-materia, the findings given by us while adjudicating the appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 would mutatis mutandis apply to the present appeal, as well. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed for similar reasons and the appeal of assessee is allowed. ITA No. 2342/Mum/2018 - Assessment Year 2013-14 12. The learned AR submitted that the only difference in the present appeal is that the assessment order is passed under section 143(3) of t....