TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 1031
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned PCIT erred in holding that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a private limited company and engaged in the business of trading of Unrefined Sulphur. The case of the assessee was selected under scrutiny and therefore the assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Act dated 7th September 2016 at Rs. 28,64,460/- under normal computation of income and at Rs. 28,27,027/- under MAT provisions. 3.1 Subsequently, the learned PCIT on the ve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd loss account along with the purchases. But this fact has not been verified by the AO during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the learned Principal CIT proposed to hold the order of the AO as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue vide notice dated 15th January 2019. 3.6 The assessee in response to such notice vide letter dated 23rd January 2019 submitted that the variation between the purchases shown in the profit and loss account and VAT return is arising for the reason that the amount of custom duty was not shown in the VAT return. Likewise the input credit on the purchases was not shown in the profit and loss account. To this effect, the assessee filed reconciliation statement which is reproduced as under:....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aside the assessment order with the direction to the AO to frame the fresh assessment after making the necessary enquiries as discussed above. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 125 and compilation of case laws and contended that there is no difference between the purchases shown by the assessee in the profit and loss account viz a viz in the VAT return. Such difference, was arising on account of the custom duty shown in the profit and loss account which was not shown in the VAT return. Likewise, the tax paid on the purchases was not shown in the profit and loss account but the same was shown in the VAT return.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d therefore the question of claiming the VAT input on such purchases does not arise. However, the assessee in the VAT return has claimed input VAT on such purchases which is not possible. As per the learned Principal CIT, this fact has not been verified during the assessment proceedings. Thus the order passed by the AO is erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The relevant finding of the learned PCIT on this issue reads as under: He has also submitted that the purchases from Reliance Industries Ltd. SEZ Unit are imports acid customs duty has been paid on the same and bill of entries are provided, This is a fresh submission and before the A.O., neither any submission was made that purchases from Reliance Industrie....