TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 789
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- "1. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax - Rajkot - 1, Rajkot erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, particularly in the light of reasons stated by him in the show cause notice and in the order passed u/s 263 of the Act and hence the impugned order is bad in law. 2. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot - 1, Rajkot erred in setting aside the assessment order framed u/s 143(3)of the Act by holding that the assessing officer has not conducted any inquiries/verification in respect of genuineness of the purchases and that there is incorrect application of law by the A.O. 3. The learned Principal Commissioner of Inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of assessee, TCS was to be collected on purchases of Rs. 2,53,99,953/- from the seller who had made sales to the assessee. Hence, the AO treated purchases made by the assessee of Rs. 2,53,99,953/- as bogus purchases and made addition of Rs. 76,86,510/- disallowing 30% of the purchase of Rs. 2,53,99,953/- since no TCS was collected on the same. However, as per the Principal CIT, the entire purchase amounting to Rs. 2,53,99,953/- should have been treated as un-expenditure in the nature of unverifiable purchases and the total amount of Rs. 2,53,99,953/- should have been added to the income of the assessee as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act, instead of 30% of the same i.e. Rs. 76,86,510/- u/s. 40(A)(ia) of the Act. Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... already addition of Rs. 22,56,640/- being 8% on the total transaction of Rs. 2,82,08,000/-. Since the issue under consideration is under appeal before CIT(A) therefore no revision could be made. In support the assessee relied upon certain decision 7 judgments. The submission of the assessee has been carefully considered and it is noticed that as per the provisions of section 263 explanation-1, clause-C the revision can be made. Since the interpretation of the nature of transaction and the in-application of provisions would be relevant and therefore it cannot be said that the issue was same as decided by the AO. Thus pending appeal against the assessment order would not make any difference in the present revisionary proceedings." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e put before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The counsel for the assessee further argued that even on technical grounds, the instant case cannot be a subject matter of proceedings under section 263 of the Act, for the reason that on the issue of bogus purchases, the matter is pending before Ld. CIT(Appeals), where this issue is under consideration before him. Accordingly, it is settled proposition of law that when a certain issue is the subject matter of appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), then the same issue cannot be re-agitated in 263 proceedings by Principal CIT. He placed reliance on the case of CIT v. Vam Resorts and Hotels Private Limited 418 ITR 723 (Allahabad) and on the case of Smt. Renuka Philip v. ITO 409 ITR 567....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 263 of the Act as held in the case of CIT v. Vam Resorts and Hotels Private Limited 418 ITR 723 (Allahabad) and in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip v. ITO 409 ITR 567 (Madras) where it is not held that when an appeal is pending before Commissioner (Appeals), exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 by Principal Commissioner would be barred. Thirdly, it is a well-settled law that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to interests of Revenue. In the case of Gokuldas Exports [2012] 20 taxmann.com 491 (Karnataka), the High Court held that if in given facts and circumstances of a case, two views are possible and one view has been adopted by Assessing Officer, then that view....