2022 (5) TMI 1414

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... short, 'the Act') preferred by the Revenue. 2. As per Ld. Counsel for the appellant both the appeals have been decided by the Tribunal by a common order and, thus, the issue will be common in both the appeals. 3. The Tribunal decided the issue on the arguments advanced in ITA No.520/CHD/2018 titled as 'M/s Kanin India vs. The Principal CIT (Central), Ludhiana'. Thus, for convenience, the facts are being culled out from ITA No.205 of 2019. 4. Assessee is a firm engaged in manufacturing of engineering goods i.e., staplers and other stationery items. For the Assessment Year 2013-14 certain expenses were disallowed by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Assessment Order dated 25th of May, 2015 was passed under Sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through the records of the case(s). 9. Ld. Senior Standing Counsel is not in a position to deny the fact that prior to passing of order under Section 143(3) of the Act, a questionnaire was issued by the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings to the assessee. The specific issues addressed by the appellant in the present proceedings were part of the questionnaire. It is in the backdrop of these circumstances that the Tribunal recorded the finding to the following effect :- "In the facts of the present case, the Pr. CIT has exercised the power by merely flagging certain issues extracting the Show Cause Notice, extracting part of the reply of the assessee and wit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing Officer will fall within the ambit of Explanation 2 (a) appended to Section 263 of the Act, cannot be accepted till it is pointed out as to which inquiry or verification was not made by the Assessing Officer before passing the order. 12. Ld. Counsel for the appellant is not in a position to point out as to what are those inquiries or verification which should have been made but have not been made by the Assessing Officer in the present case so as to make the present case fall within Explanation 2 attached to Section 263 of the Act. 13. In the case of 'M/s Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala', 2000(2) SCC 718, Apex Court has held that - 'The phrase prejudicial to the interests of the ....