TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 857
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Income Tax Act is illegal and bad in law and is prayed to be quashed. 2. That the Order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act directing the assessee to reframe the assessment is vague, mechanical and without application of mind by the Commissioner is bad in law and is prayed to be quashed. 3. That the CIT grossly erred in passing the Order when no issue was identified in the notices issued by the CIT on which the CIT alleged the Order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. That the revision Order passed u/s 263 pursuant to the amendment made w.e.f. 1st June, 2015 is bad in law. 5. That the CIT grossly erred in law in holding that the Order passed by the Assessing Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tech P. Ltd. filed its return of income for A. Y. 2011-12 declaring total income of Rs.43,554/- only, further during the year the assessee has also repaid considerable amount of the said loan. Accordingly, creditworthiness of the sister concern and genuineness of the transaction was not verified." (ii) Assessee has shown creditors of Rs. 17,59,82,616/- in its Balance sheet, details of such creditors and their creditworthiness was not examined. (iii) On going through the schedules to the Financial Statements enclosed alongwith the Form 3CD it is noticed that the assessee has claimed Power and fuel expenses of Rs. 14,00,52,902/-, loss on settlement contact (net) of Rs.45,22,737/- travelling and conveyance expenses at Rs. l, 13,97,855/-f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld be compared and verified by A O which has not been done . vi. Advances from customers totaling to Rs.95,11,270/- claimed by the assessee. The A O should have examined all details regarding advances . 6. The Ld. PCIT was of the opinion that the assessment order was made without conducting proper enquiry by the A.O. who has passed the assessment order further the assessing officer did not examine the facts of the case and the same was resulted into prejudice to the revenue. Accordingly, the Ld. PCIT cancelled the assessment order and directed to frame the assessment after examining the issues mentioned in the order by affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Thus, the Ld. PCIT has passed the order impugned on 22/03/2016 whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l on record, make enquiry, apply his mind and to pass the assessment order. Therefore, the Ld. PCIT has rightly invoked Section 263 of the Act and passed the order impugned which requires no interference. 10. We have heard the parties, perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. 11. In so far as Item No. i of the order u/s 263 of the Act, regarding allegation of creditworthiness of unsecured loan of Rs. 2 crore, it is found that, during the regular assessment proceedings, the Ld. A.O. has issued notice on 20th February, 2014 and in response to the same, the assessee had filed submission on 07/03/2014 and also submitted details pertaining to unsecured loan of Rs. 2 crore taken from Geepee Softech Pvt. Ltd. In so f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... questionnaires u/s 142(1) of the Act which has been replied by the assessee vide letter dated 07/03/2014. Therefore, in our opinion, the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that the 'Assessing Officer did not examine the facts of the case and thus, the assessment order passed by the A.O. is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue' is erroneous and contrary to the facts. 14. It is not in dispute that the case was transferred on 29/03/3014 to the A.O. who has passed the assessment order on 30/03/2014 and the A.O. had only one day time to pass the assessment order since the case was getting time barred on 31/03/2014. The said facts cannot be ground for the PCIT to excise power conferred u/s 263 of the Act. In the present case, the asse....