TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 329
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... U/s 263 and thereby setting aside order passed by Assessing Officer 2. Assessee craves leave to add and alter any other ground that may be taken at the time of hearing." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a civil contractor. Return of income was filed on 03/12/2009 declaring total income of Rs.1,06,51,410/-. The return of income was processed U/s 143(1) of the Act. Case of the assessee was reopened U/s 148 of the Act on the basis of an information of the Sales Tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra that the assessee is beneficiary of Hawala entries. Mandatory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The AO after making discussion and examination, completed the assessment at total income of Rs. 1,12,8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r bogus purchases should be restricted only to gross profit, have been widely taken by the Judiciary across India. For sake of easy reference, we have enclosed the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Mohommad Haji Adam & Co (BOM)(HC) dated 11/02/2019, where the addition was restricted-to the Gross profit. (Said judgment can be found at page 38 to 43 of the paper book). 3. Therefore, view of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax that the entire expenditure should be disallowed is one of the possible view. However, it is settled jurisprudence that the Section 263 cannot be invoked on e basis of Change of opinion. We find support from the below mentioned-Judgments of the Bombay High Court. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 204(3) of the scheme held that every order passed under section 204(2) of the scheme shall be conclusive as to the matter stated therein and no matter covered by such order shall be re-opened in any other proceedings under the Act or wealth tax act for time being in force. (Relevant paragraph 7 of the judgment, can be found on page 24 & 25 of the paper book). 6. The appellant also wishes to highlight the fact that before the First Appellate Authority, the appellant has taken two ground of App al. First, challenging the jurisdiction under section 147 and second G.P., addition made on account of alleged Hawala Purchase. (Page 4 and 4A of the paper book) The important fact is that the Appellant has not only ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and hence, according to the ld. Pr.CIT, the assessment was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Whereas on the contrary, the ld. AR has taken a specific ground that the additions had already been made in this case in respect of G.P. @ 11.9% and the assessee had already gone in appeal before the First Appellate Authority and the assessee had also opted for the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016 (in short, DTDRS) and have filed a petition which is pending for finalization and in this respect, it was also submitted by the assessee that there are certain judicial pronouncements which support assessee's contention that an assessment order should not be set aside u/s 263 of the Act in respect of issues wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in invoking provisions of Section 263 of the Act. Apart from that, we have also noticed that during the assessment proceedings, the A.O. had also called for requisite details and after considering the said documents, treated the purchases as bogus purchase and brought to tax the gross profit on the said purchase to the taxation. Moreover, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. vide its order dated 11/02/2019 had also restricted the additions under similar circumstances to the gross profit. The copy of the said order has also been placed on record at page No. 38 to 43 of the paper book. Thus, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the view of the ld. P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een levied at 30% and the A.O. erred in levying penalty at 10%. The Coordinate Bench highlighting provisions of Section 204(3) of the scheme held that every order passed U/s 204(2) of the scheme shall be conclusive as to the matter stated therein and no matter covered by such order shall be reopened in any other proceedings under the Act or Wealth Tax Act for time being in force." Even as per the facts of the present case, we also noticed that before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee had taken two grounds of appeal i.e. (i) challenging the jurisdiction U/s 147 of the Act and (ii) G.P. addition made on account of alleged Hawala purchase. The copy of the grounds of appeal has already been placed on record at page No. 4 and 4A of the....