TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 1035
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dice to one another. 2. The order passed by Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-1 [hereinafter referred as to the "PCIT"] is bad in law, invalid and requires to be quashed, the same may kindly be quashed. 3. The Ld. PCIT erred in law and on facts in arriving at a conclusion to the effect that the assessment order passed by the AO was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the ground that such order was passed without making proper enquiries/verification regarding reconciliation of purchase value as per books and purchase value as per data of custom department. The order passed by PCIT is requires to be quashed and may kindly be quashed. 4. The learned Pr. CIT erred on facts as also in law in setting asid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty paid to the tune of Rs. 2,49,70,580/- in submission made by the assessee firm during the course of assessment proceedings as compared to ITS data available with the Department. In view of the all above facts, Ld. Pr. CIT came to the conclusion that the purchase value/invoice values have wrongly mentioned to reduce the net profit of the Firm and the same has not been verified by the AO at the time of finalizing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act on 13.12.2019. Therefore, Ld. Pr. Ld. CIT(A), after taking on record the submission filed by the assessee, set aside the order of AO as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Ld. Pr. CIT made the following observations, while passing the order passed u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts will indicate that AO has not conducted any inquiries/verification in respect of issues mentioned at above para. It may be mentioned that two essentials condition for invoking the provisions of Section 263 of I.T. Act are that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 10. In view of the above discussion it is apparent that such cases where the assessment has been completed without conducting any inquiries/verification or incorrect application of law tantamount to erroneous orders as also order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 11. From the above, it is evident that there was incorrect application of law. It is settled position that incorrect application of law constitutes an error and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted reconciliation before Ld. Pr. CIT during the course of order passed u/s. 263 of the Act proceedings and submitted that there is no difference in invoice Value/assessable value and custom duty as alleged in the show cause notice and custom duty paid during the relevant previous year is matching with the records of the custom department and there is no case of wrongly mentioning of the purchase value/invoice value to reduce net profit of the firm as alleged. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO has finalized the assessment after considering the details furnished and after due application of mind, the assessment order cannot be termed as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. As such any modification th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f L.A. Developers v. CIT [2022] 142 taxmann.com 280 (Cuttack - Trib.), assessee filed its return of income under section 153C and same was completed under section 143(3). Thereafter, assessment was reopened by issue of a notice under section 148 and a reassessment order was passed by Assessing Officer. The Commissioner noted that there was a glaring difference in valuation of current assets and current liabilities as shown in assessee's balance sheet as compared to its cash flow statement, and said information was very much available during reassessment proceedings. He therefore invoked provision of section 263 in order to set-aside/modify assessment order passed by Assessing Officer. It was noted that Assessing Officer had called for d....