TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 651
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company and is engaged in transportation business. Return of income for AY 2015-16 was e-filed on 29.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 11,98,348/-. Case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Written submissions were filed by the assessee. Certain other information were also called for verification. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was also issued to verify the transportation charges. The assessee's case was scrutinized for limited scrutiny for the large other expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss Accounts, low profit shown by the transporters and mismatch of amounts. The ld. Assessing Officer (in short ld. "AO") on examining the information brought on record as wel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28/12/2017for the assessment year 2015-16 appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to this point. In order to elicit your reaction, your case is fixed for hearing u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at my chamber at Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 6th Floor, Room No-601 on 23.12.2019 at 11.45 A.M./PM. You are, therefore, requested to appear either in person or through your authorised representative to explain the case with supporting documentary evidences. As the proceeding is getting barred by limitation on31.03.2020, your failure to respond to this notice will compel the undersigned to take decision on merits of the case and paper available with the department." 3. In response to the sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fically drew our attention to page no. 11 of the PB showing copies of order sheet to indicate that sufficient enquiry was undertaken. Our attention was also drawn to the information called for u/s 133(6) of the Act from various transporters confirming the payment of the transportation charges received from anywhere. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana vs. Max India Ltd. reported in [2008] 166 Taxman 188 (SC), CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. reported in ITA No. 119/2012 (Delhi High Court) dated 20.11.2012 and CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal reported in 320 ITR 674 (Del). The ld. D/R vehemently relied on the order of the ld. Pr. CIT. 6. We have heard the riv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r passed by the Assessing Officer. Ever y loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot he treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example, when an Income-tux Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of Revenue; or where two views are possible and the Income- Tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot he treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law" 9. Further, we find that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd.has held that: "The Income-tax Officer in this case had made enqui....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng various information from the assessee which ld. Pr. CIT has himself referred in the impugned order. The assessee having filed a reply has also been accepted by the Pr. CIT. Further, ld. Pr. CIT has also appreciated that notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were issued in the case of four parties to verify the genuineness of transport expenditure. 12. From a perusal of P&L account placed at page 6 of the PB we find that the transportation charges incurred during the year are Rs. 9,64,97,865/- whereas in the immediately preceding year the transportation charges were at Rs. 4,17,92,836/-. The figure shows that the transportation charges have doubled in the instant year. However, the turnover of the assessee has also doubled during the year havi....