TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 502
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 263 is bad in law and bad on facts. 2. The ld. CIT- Bikaner had erred in observing that original assessment made u/s. 143(3) on 5th June 2014 was erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue and has erred in setting the said order. 3. The order u/s. 263 is vague and without proper jurisdiction and there is no conclusion that the original assessment made was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue and just for re examination of the issues such order could not have been set aside. 4. The original assessment was completed after detailed scrutiny and setting aside such order for the purpose of verification of certain claims is bad in law and bad on facts. There is no firm conclusion that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raves liberty to add, amend, alter, and modify any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour." 2. The assessee company filed return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs. 17,59,660/- on 21.9.2012. The said case was selected under CASS and notice was issued u/s. 143(2) on 21.8.2013, and thereafter assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 5.6.2014. 3. The ld. PCIT was of the view that the said order passed u/s. 143(3) on 5.6.2014 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and accordingly notice was issued on 18.11.2016 on various issues. The first issue raised was on account of certain purchases made from Satyanarayan certain payments of Rs. 4 lakhs and Rs. 2.90 lakhs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es and payment were given to them. Weight Receipts as proof of purchase from difference person and payment vouchers indicate that the payment was made to different persons. The reply in this regard was also submitted during the assessment proceedings and was submitted during the proceedings under 263. As regards payment to Mahaveer Prasad Mistri and two other helpers this was payment to three persons and the payment was not in violation of Section 40A(3). 5. The next issue was with regard to the Share Capital of Rs. 4,50,000/- issued to Deepak Bhatia, which was not verified during the course of assessment. The money was taken from the company and deposited as share capital. No proper enquiry was being made in this regard. The contention ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the assessee was accepted without proper verification. The assessee had submitted reply on 19.3.2014 in which it was stated that some sarson was purchased from State farm was of inferior quality which had resulted into some shortages. This plea after examination was accepted during the course of assessment proceedings. 8. The next objection of the PCIT is that verification of transaction with related parties was not done. As regards transactions with related party the details were submitted and confirmation of account was submitted. 9. In relation to the next issue relating to discount this was also discussed during the assessment proceedings. The amount of discount was 0.82% in the current year as against 1.10% in the last year. Ag....