TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 1694
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(3) dated 05.11.2014, by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the I.T Act, 1961, without providing any proper opportunity of hearing. 2. That the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda erred on facts and law in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 to pass an order cancelling the order u/s 143(3) dated 05.11.2014 of the AO because all the issues which have been set aside to the AO had been examined in detail during the course of assessment proceedings and the order u/s 143(3) had been passed by the AO after due application of mind. 3. That the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda erred on facts and law in cancelling the order of the AO in complete violation of powers vested u/s 263 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., such payments each less than Rs.20,000/- have been made to 50 different persons. Similarly, such payments have been made to 21 different persons on 21.03.2012. The persons mentioned against entries made on 21.03.2012 are different from the persons mentioned on 31.03.2012. Similarly, numerous such payments have been allegedly made to various persons on various other dates of the accounting year. The AO has neither enquired regarding the genuineness of such persons nor has he made any enquiry as to what services have been rendered by such persons. 5. It is apparent from the said ledger account that the said payments are certainly not machinery hiring charges. It is not expected that you will enter into agreements with hundreds of persons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unds of such cash deposits. 8. In view of the above, you are hereby given an opportunity to explain as to why the above referred assessment order dated 05.11.2014 may not be cancelled u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for making fresh assessment since the said order passed by the Assessing Officer prima facie appears to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue." 5. Thereafter, the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax passed order u/s 263 of the Act holding the order of assessment to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and cancelling the assessment order with a direction to make de novo assessment as per the directions given by him. 6. Being aggrieved against the said order, the assessee is in appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under the head hiring charges of machinery. The assessee claimed expenses of Rs.2,66,42,000/- under the head. The Assessing Officer noticing certain defects in respect of these expenses have disallowed Rs.1,30,000/- out of the said expenses. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax after observing the defects as pointed out by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment was not satisfied with the amount disallowed by the Assessing Officer and it appears that in his view more disallowance ought to have been made. 12. We find that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order after disallowing Rs.1,30,000/- has allowed deduction for Rs.2,65,12,000/- in respect of expenses incurred under the head hiring charges for machinery. No material has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. 15. The third issued dealt by the Ld. Pr. CIT relates to low withdrawal by partners. The Ld. Pr. CIT observed that partners, namely, Shri. Bheem Sain, Shri. Bharat Bhushan and Jiwan Kumar has withdrawn Rs.60,000/- each during the year which was considered as low. It is observed that the other partners Shri. Dharam Pal and Shri. Jivan Singla has withdrawn Rs.14,50,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/-. We find that exactly in respect of the very same issue order u/s 263 of the Act passed in the case of the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 was cancelled by the Tribunal vide order dated 01.06.2016 in ITA Nos. 219 & 672/Asr./2015. We, therefore, following the same hold that order passed u/s 263 of the Act in respect of this issue is also....