TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 599
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntial questions of law for consideration: i) Whether the Learned Tribunal committed substantial error in law in holding that the "purchases" other than "other expenses", were not disallowed by A.O. in original assessment and assessee had also not produced necessary evidence of purchases before Commissioner in 263 proceedings and thus wrongly placing reliance on cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 & Max India 295 ITR 282. ii) Whether the Learned Tribunal committed substantial error in law in holding that a view has already been taken by Assessing Officer on 'Other Expenses' by making 5% disallowance thus re-calculating Gross Profit, whereas commissioner's finding, in 263 revisionary order, is related to 'unexplained Bogus pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment was completed, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, Kolkata (PCIT) exercised his power under Section 263 of the Act on the ground that the disallowance of other expenses estimated at 5% as done by the assessing officer was incorrect. A notice was issued to the assessee for which the assessee responded and submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee produced all the relevant documents before the assessing officer relating to its purchase and expenditure and the proposal of the PCIT to fix the disallowance at 25% on purchase, that too, on ad hoc basis without any evidence cannot be done and requested for dropping the proceedings. Certain decisions of the tribunal were also relied on by the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee that the documents and details were furnished before the assessing officer was not found to be incorrect. Therefore, we are of the view that the tribunal having taken note of the factual position had rightly interfered with the order passed by the PCIT. The learned standing counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT in Tax Appeal No.240 of 2003 etc. dated 20th June, 2016. This decision is referred to since the decision in Vijay Proteins Ltd. has been relied upon in the said case. We find that the decision in Vijay Proteins Ltd. is distinguishable on facts since in the said case it was conclusively found that the entire purchases were ....