TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 468
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), before it against the assessment order dated 15.11.2016 passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act by the ITO, Ward-5(4), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO). 2. Brief fact of the case are that assessee is a closely held company engaged in the business of real estate and deriving its business income from the same and filed its return on 16.09.2009. Thereafter, Ld. AO issued the notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2016 on the basis of some document seized during the survey proceeding on M/s Cardio Technovention that assessee-company paid cash amounting to Rs. 5,73,183/- to M/s Cardio Technovention for the purpose of taking reversal of entry as commission received through proper banking cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and perused the record. 3.1 The only effective issue in the present appeal is against the action of Ld. PCIT in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 and holding that assessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue by alleging that assessee-company paid cash amounting to Rs. 5,73,183/- to M/s Cardio Technovention for the purpose of taking reversal of entry as commission received through proper banking channel for Rs. 6,39,000/- and this issue was not thoroughly examined while completing the assessment. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the issue of alleged cash paid to M/s Cardio Technovention was thoroughly examined during the assessment proceedings and nothing adverse was found i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as at Page 8 of PB is the P/L account of assessee showing that the amount received from M/s Cardio Technovention has been duly shown as revenue and thus offered for taxation purposes. iv. At Page 22 of PB is the copy of questionnaire dated 15.06.2016 issued by Ld. AO duly asking to furnish information regarding the allegation that assessee paid cash to M/s Cardio Technovention. Page 25-26 of PB is another questionnaire dated 14.07.2016 wherein Ld. AO asked assessee to furnish an affidavit from M/s Cardio Technovention. Page 37-38 of PB is the affidavit of Sh. Lalit Mundra, partner of M/s Cardio Techovention duly submitting that only the commission has been paid to assessee during the concerned year and no cash has been received fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Frozen Foods vs. Addl.CIT 93 TTJ 485 ITAT Mumbai Bench. * Pawan Kumar vs AO, 106 TTJ 494 ITAT Jodhpur Bench. * CIT vs. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd., (2008) 303 ITR 256 (Del). * CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. 341 ITR 180 (Del.). * CIT vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd., 323 ITR 632 (Bom). 4. Ld DR however supported the findings of Ld. Tax authorities. 5. It can be appreciated form the impugned order that the primarily the Ld Revisional authority was not convinced as to how only on the basis of affidavit by the partner of M/s Cardio Technovention Ld. AO has given benefit to assessee and ignored the document impounded in the survey on M/s Cardio Technovention. The ....