2021 (12) TMI 498

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ome Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and the order dated 31.03.2018 ("the impugned order") passed by Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -2, New Delhi ("Pr. CIT") under the said section is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Pr.CIT has erred on facts and in law in exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act more so when the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer ("AO") u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2016 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Pr. CIT has erred in setting aside the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ses made by the assessee, and the same were inquired into and examined by the AO in assessment order u/s. 143(3) dated 31.03.2016, wherein the AO was satisfied by the explanations and reason given for the marginal shortfall in G.P. for AY 2014-15 as compared to AY 2013-14. Consequently, upon examination of the material before him, the AO was of the considered view that no addition was required to be made on trading account in case of the assessee. 9. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Pr.CIT has erred in holding that purchase of other material totalling to Rs. 124.5 crore (attributable to 9.7% of turnover) seems to be disproportionate vis-a-vis purchase of other material in AY 2013-14 totalling to R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d view that no additions was required to be made on trading account in the case of the assessee. 14. That accordingly, the Ld. Pr.CIT has factually erred in holding that the AO has not examined details of the claim of exceptional loss amounting to Rs. 81.5 crore incurred by the assessee. 15. That without prejudice to the grounds above, the issue of claim of exceptional loss amounting to Rs. 81.5 crore was not forming part of the show cause notice dated 23.02.2018 issued by Ld. Pr.CIT u/s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, there has been a clear violation of provisions of section 263 of the I.T Act along with principles of natural justice in so far as the assessee was never given an opportunity to be heard on the issue of clai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xamine and verify 3 points which are mentioned in para 5 of the said order. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31.03.2018 passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central - 2, New Delhi, the assessee filed the present appeal before us. 5. The ld. AR submitted that the show cause notice issued by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax was on different point and the verification as per the direction to the Assessing Officer was on a different footing. Therefore, the order passed under Section 263 of the Act is not valid order. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the sh....