TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 624
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay, has been filed. The learned counsel submitted that assessee could not file appeal within the time allowed under the Act, therefore, delay may be condoned. Having heard both sides and considered the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that reasons given by assessee for not filing the appeal within the time allowed under the Act, comes under reasonable cause as provided under the Act, for condonation of delay and hence, delay in filing of above appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of import and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the suppliers, bill of entry and other relevant documents have been furnished. The AO after considering relevant facts has rightly accepted the purchase value declared by the assessee. Therefore, the question of invoking provisions of Sec. 263 of the Act, on the very same issue does not arise. 4. The PCIT after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of certain judicial precedents opined that the AO has failed to consider relevant materials to bring to tax, the difference in value of import made by the assessee for the relevant assessment years which rendered the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, set aside the assessment orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Guhati High Court in CIT Vs Jawahar Bhattacharjee 341 ITR 434 (Gau((FB). In 41 ITR 286 (Ker), it was held that when AO passed a cryptic order which does not contain details and claims were accepted without enquiry, the assessment order was erroneous and order u/s. 263 was justified. In case of Supercloth, 99 ITD 300 (Chn), it was held that lack of enquiry by AO was sufficient to invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263. In case of Rampyari Devi 67 ITR 84 (SC), it was held that accepting the issue without conduction enquiry is valid ground for invoking proceedings u/s. 263. In case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has neither applied his mind nor made any enquiry or called for all requir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the difference between purchases shown in the books of accounts and purchases value at determined by the CBEC. Further, the assessee had also explained the reasons for mismatch in import of purchases with necessary evidences. The AO after considering relevant facts has rightly accepted the purchases declared by the assessee and thus, it cannot be said that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the PCIT, submitted that the PCIT has brought out clear facts to the effect that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and their orders should ....