TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 898
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld. AO has passed the order after considering all material facts and balance confirmation of unsecured loans being opening balances etc." 2. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that for the ld Pr CIT to exercise jurisdiction u/s 263, firstly, the order passed by the ITO must be erroneous and secondly, the error must be such that it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If the order is erroneous but it is not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, the Commissioner cannot exercise the revisional jurisdiction under section 263(1) and reliance was placed on the decision in case of H.H. Maharaja Raja Power Dewas V. CIT(1982) 138 ITR 518 (M.P.). 3. It was further submitted that in response to PCIT'S show cause....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....our office as opening balance as on 01.04.2015. Further interest paid to him for Rs. 60,000.00 for the year quarterwise & thus same amount of Rs. 5,00,000 as received on 03.04.2015 remained closing balance as on 31.03.2016. 4. It was submitted that after going through the e-filed documents & paper book, the A.O. has correctly & judiciously examined & decided the issue. It is further to inform that A.O. is suppose to take all such documents, evidences to his satisfaction & A.O. has only after examining the evidences, as e-filed & necessarily required for assessment proceedings have sought the details, examined, verified. Even all of the confirmation as filed were examined & re- verified u/sec. 133(6) of Act. Thus, from above e-filed docum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e examination of facts, evidences, cross-verifications have accepted the genuineness of such cash, creditors/depositors and thus, the wrong inference as made by PCIT out of same record does not justify the parameters as laid down for invoking the provisions of section 263 as held in case of CIT v/s NIRAV MODI (2017) 390 ITR 292 (BOM) (HC) wherein it was held that "It has been held that enquiries were made by the A.O. and such enquiries need not reflect in order of assessment especially if the A.O. accepted the claim, for if the issues which have attained finality are discussed in order of assessment, it would become an epitome and not a judicial order and that the order of assessment simply records the dissatisfaction of the A.O. with respe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of ledger confirmation, which does not have any signature from Sh. Bharat Harwani. Further no ITR and bank statement has been furnished of Sh. Bharat Harwani so as to establish / prove the genuineness and creditworthiness in respect of this unsecured loan. b) As regard unsecured loan from Sh. Rahul Harwani having closing balance of Rs. 10,44,730/-, the assessee has furnished a photocopy of ledger confirmation from Sh. Rahul Harwani. However, on examination of the same it is seen that out of total credits of Rs. 13,19,548/- during the year, only Rs. 5,64,548/- have been shown to be received through cheque and remaining entries are general entries pertaining to purchase expense etc., i.e. they are not through account payee cheque or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted to ensure that opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee before passing the order." 7. Further, ld. Pr CIT/DR relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions as under:- * Virbhadra Singh (HUF) Vs PCIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh) * CIT vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bombay) * Jeevan Investment & Finance (P.) Ltd vs. CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 552 (Bombay) * Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) * Daniel Merchants P Ltd and others (SLP No. 23976/2017 dated 29.11.2017) * Goa Sesa Sterlite Limited (erstwhile Sesa Goa Ltd) vs. CIT (Tax Appeals No. 27/2015 and 28/2015 dated 2nd November, 2020). 8. We have ....