TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 948
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tances of the case, the order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7 (Pr. CIT) under Section 263 of the Act is bad, both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Pr. CIT cancelling the assessment order passed by the AO, is untenable in the absence of order of the A.O. being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the fact that all the issues raised by her in notice under Section 263 were before the AO in proceedings under Section 143(3) and as such the jurisdiction on this issue under Section 263 cannot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce under section 143(2) dated 16.03.2016 was issued and saved upon the assessee. Further, notice under section 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued on 13.02.2017. In response thereto, the assesee filed necessary details which were placed on record. After duly verifying the said details furnished, the Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") accepted the income returned by the assessee and completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 28.04.2017. 4. The Ld. PCIT examined the record of the assessment proceedings and noticed that the details of investment in property are not placed on record; the large increase in sundry creditors in the year as compared to immediate preceding year and genuineness thereof is not ascertained from asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng a company it is inapplicable to it. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment order is erroneous not being inconformity with section 56(2)(vii)(b) as held by the Ld. PCIT. The impugned order of Ld. PCIT is therefore void-ab-initio and invalid in the eyes of law. His direction to the Ld. AO also is, therefore not sustainable. 6.1 The Ld. AR further pointed out that section 56(2)(x) which may be applicable in case of companies was introduced w.e.f. AY 2018-19 but in assessee company's case AY involved is 2015-16. Therefore, provisions of section 56(2)(x) also cannot be made applicable to the assessee company. Reliance is placed on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in ITO vs. M/s. Sharan Svadha LLP 2022(10)TMI457 decided on 11.10.2022.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o issued (Copy at page 21-22 of Paper Book) enclosing therewith copy of AIR/ITS data. Query No. 18 of the questionnaire required the assessee to provide justification along with supporting documents in relation to CASS reasons. The assessee filed replies (copy at page 23-27 of Paper Book). Para 7 at page 26 of the Paper Book contained specific reply/justification on issues relating to selection of case for 'Limited Scrutiny' accompanied by copy of sale deed dated 17.07.2014, copy of newspaper cutting evidencing lower fair market value than stamp duty value of property at Narela Industrial Complex; copy of assessee's Valuation Report of property purchased at Narela Industrial Park and copy of comparable sale deed (pages 28-54 of Paper Book).....