TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 23
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e revenue. The assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 being contrary8 to the provisions of law and facts on record, hence, the proceedings initiated u/s 263 of the Act and impugned order dated 21-10-2022 deserved to be quashed. 3. The ld. Pr. CIT (Central), Jaipur seriously erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in wrongly setting the assessment order dated 02-07-2021 despite there being complete application of mind by the AO on the subjected issues being the loans received and duly verified by the AO, it was nothing but a case of change of opinion, based on which, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 is not permissible. The impugned order dated 21-10-2022, therefore, lacks valid jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and hence, the same kindly be quashed.'' 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed her return of income on 31-10-2019 declaring total income amounting to Rs. 6,08,680/- for the assessment year under consideration. The return filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, 1961. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on the business premises of the assessee on 29-10-2018. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was manually selected for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the assessee, this fact has not been discussed or inquired or satisfactorily examined in the assessment proceedings. c) The submission of a chart showing details of unsecured loans lacked satisfactory supporting documentary evidence, indicating a lack of documentary evidence. However, the ld. CIT, has not repeated the above allegations in the impugned order. d) Confirmations of loan filled by creditors u/s 133(6) were without any documentary evidence and do not inspire confidence. The list of 22 creditors with their confirmations lacked necessary details, and the particulars did not match with the details provided in Schedule "E", indicating incomplete or inaccurate creditor details. e) The appropriate inquiries / verifications of loans have not been made by the AO. This lack of inquiry and consequent non deriving of reasoned inference by the Assessing Officer has prima facie caused prejudice to the interests of the revenue." The assessee filed detailed submission in response dt. 24.08.2022 (PB 60-67). The ld. PCIT didn't agree with the submissions and finally held as under: (Pg10 & 11 Para.11) "I have studied the facts at hand and the material available on record. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icial to the interest of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO. Every loss of Revenue as a consequence of the order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. For example, if the AO has adopted one of the two or more courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and AO has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is totally unsustainable in law. Kindly refer Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). 1.2 Also kindly refer CIT v/s Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) wherein it is held that: "The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" in S. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example, when the Assessing Officer adopts one of two courses pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....their details in the following format" vide notice dated 15.04.2021 u/s 142(1) of the IT Act (PB 33-34) w.r.t. the issue as under: "2. On perusal of details available on records, it is noticed that sundry creditor amount of Rs. 9,81,205/- and Unsecured Loan of Rs. 1,00,78,817/- were claimed in Balance Sheet of A.Y. 2019- 20. In this regard, various opportunities were given to you by issuing notice dated 24.02.2021 u/s 142(1) of the I T Act dated, 12.04.2021 but you have not furnished required details/information." The assessee in response to the above notices, filed detailed written submissions dated 19.04.2021 (PB 35-40), 09.06.2021, 29.06.2021 & 01.07.2021. He also filed complete documents w.r.t. queries raised along with affidavits, ITRs, Computation, bank account details etc in six new cases (and confirmations in old cases) which was required by the AO time to time through the A/R, and the same were duly verified and examined by the AO. The identity and capacity of creditor and genuineness of transaction were fully proved in six cases where amount was received during the year vide letter dt. 19.04.2021 (PB 35- 44, Pr. 2 to 4), wherein the source in all the six cases were e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n dated 21/07/2018. Thus here also, there is a direct source of receipt of Rs. 40,000/- 3.6 Shri Shiv Kumar Chourasiya- Rs. 10,000/- He had sufficient bank balances prior to transfer the amount of Rs. 10,000/- dated 07/06/2018.Thus here also, there is a direct source of receipt of Rs. 10,000/- 2.2 Selection of the case under compulsory scrutiny being a survey case: Moreover, the very fact of selection of the case under compulsory scrutiny based documents and material found during survey, followed by the issuance of various notices u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire which were duly replied by the assessee time to time, as stated above. This has fully established that the AO was fully alive to the issue in hand from all angles, whether factual or legal aspect involved. 2.3 That very pertinently, all the creditors except six cases are coming since preceding year/s as evident from the confirmative affidavits (PB 9-30) and also from the earlier year/s balance sheets uploaded in the ROI as on 31.03.2018 (PB 69-72) showing the figure of Current liabilities - Sundry Creditors (Net Amt.) at Rs. 69,92,663 /- and the ledger a/c (PB 73). A chart was given in reply dt. 19.04.2021 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd of the current year and the preceding year, in the light of which the subjected assessment was passed as stated below: That, all the amounts were received through bank transfers only. There are no cash receipts. (PB 36 Para 1) That, the date/year of receipt is duly mentioned in the affidavits. That, most of the creditors are regular IT assessee and their respective PAN are available in the affidavits (and in the chart PB 35-36) Neetu Khandelwal despite request, refused to provide PAN (PB 36 Para 1). That, the identity and capacity of creditor and genuineness of transaction were fully proved in six cases where amount was received during the year vide letter dt. 19.04.2021 (PB 35- 44, Pr. 2-4 ), wherein the source in all the six cases have been explained . That, the Sundry Creditors and the Unsecured Loans are appearing in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2019 (PB 1-3) and the list of Sundry Creditors (PB 4 ). 2.5 Further it is wrong to say that the sundry creditors of Rs. 9,81,205/- in the balance sheet is without any corresponding purchase/transaction because the details of Sundry Creditors were also submitted vide letter dated 19.04.2021 (PB 39 Para B) 3.1 AO acted a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and every case even though there are no sufficient grounds or may be against the human probabilities. Hence, discretion conferred upon the AO has to be exercised judiciously as held in CIT vs Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 0570 (SC): "As pointed out by the Tribunal, in the corresponding clause in the Bill which was introduced in Parliament, the word "shall" had been used but during the course of consideration of the Bill and on the recommendation of the Select Committee, the said word was substituted by the word "may". This clearly indicates that the intention of Parliament in enacting s. 69 was to confer a discretion on the ITO in the matter of treating the source of investment which has not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee as the income of the assessee and the ITO is not obliged to treat such source of investment as income in every case where the explanation offered by the assessee is found to be not satisfactory. The question whether the source of the investment should be treated as income or not under s. 69 has to be considered in the light of the facts of each case. In other words, a discretion has been conferred on the ITO under s. 69 to treat the source o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee and then had formed a view to accept same, Commissioner was unjustified in invoking jurisdiction under section 263. Whether if there was an enquiry, even inadequate, that would not, by itself, give occasion to Commissioner to pass order under section 263, merely because he has a different opinion in matter; it is only in case of 'lack of inquiry' that such a cause of action can be open. However, the ld. CIT is completely silent on this aspect. 5. S.263 Explanation not invoked: Interestingly, the ld. CIT did not invoke Explanation to S.263 which is normally interpreted / taken support by the invoking of S.263 in absence of which, the ld. CIT could not have at all complained of lack of inquiry or not making proper inquiries. Otherwise also he has not suggested what further inquiries could and should have been made in the admitted facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. Normally, in absence of any contrary material the averments made in the affidavits should be accepted. Ref: Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC). In this case no such material is referred even by the CIT. 7. A pertinent fact having a direct bearing cannot be lost sight off /....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the requirement of s. 68- There was no evidence, information or anything else indicating that more enquiries were warranted-It was not the case of the CIT that there was a complete/total lack of inquiry-Law is well settled that the assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous simply on the allegation of inadequate enquiry-Reason for selection of the case for scrutiny does not speak of s. 56(2)(viib)-Therefore, the AO could not have made enquiries on this aspect-Even otherwise, the assessee also submitted a report of the expert under r. 11UA which fully justified charging premium @ Rs. 50 per share-Hence, the AO was justified in not applying s. 56(2)(viib)- Moreover, once all the details were made available before the CIT, he should have decided the issues instead of setting aside to the AO-Therefore, the order passed by the Principal CIT under s. 263 is quashed. 8.3 In [2016] 76 taxmann.com 226 (SC) CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd (DPB 17 ) Held: IT : SLP dismissed against High Court's ruling that where assessee raised funds by way of FCCBs and Assessing Officer made detailed enquiries about genuineness and creditworthiness of actual subscribers to such FCCBs in terms o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hence, invocation of Explanation in the order without confronting the assessee is not appropriate and sustainable in law in support of this contention, the ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the following decision: CIT v. Amir Corporation 81 CCH 0069 (Guj.), CIT Mehrotra Brothem -270 ITR 0157 (MP,CIT v. Ganpet Ram Bishnoi - 296 ITR 0292 (Raj.), Cadila healthcare Ltd. v. Cl 7, Ahmedabadh-1 [ITA no. 1096/Ahd/2013 & 910/Ahd/2014], Sri Saí Contractors v. ITO [ITO no. 109Nizag/2002] and Pyare lal Jaiswal v. CIT, Vamnesi [(2014) 41 taxmann.com 27 & (AII Trib.)]. It was contended by the Learned Counsel that clause -(a) & (b) of Explanation 2 of Section 263 are not applicable as the Assessing Officer has made enquiry and verification which should have been made. Further, in the show cause notice, the Explanation-2 of section 263 was not invoked by the PCIT and it was referred in the order u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, in the light of decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai ga in the case of Narayan Tatu Rane - 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum. Trt.) [PB 153-1561 wherein held that explanation cannot laid to have over ridden the law as interpreted/the various High Courts where the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that assessment order is not sustainable in law. This would inevitably mean that every order of the lower authority would thus become susceptible to section 263 of the Act and, in turn, will cause serious unintended hardship to the tax payer concerned for no fault on his part. Apparently, this is not intended by the Explanation. Howsoever wide the scope of Explanation 2(a) may be, its limits are implicit in it. It is only in a very gross case of inadequacy in inquiry or where inquiry is per se mandated on the basis of record available before the AO and such inquiry was not conducted, the revisional power so conferred can be exercised to invalidate the action of AO. The AO in the present case has not accepted the submissions of the assessee on various issues summarily but has shown appetite for inquiry and verifications. The AO has passed after making due enquiries issues involved impliedly after due application of mind. Therefore, the Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act do not, in our view, thwart the assessment process in the facts and the context of the case. Consequently, we find that the foundation for exercise of revisional jurisdiction is sorely missing in the present ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there. Obvisiouly the conclusion drawn is based on misreading of law and facts hence the resultant conclusion is also erroneous. 2. Para 6.2 and 6.3 Both the objections that the conformations are in the same font without detail of mode of payment, is a mere suspicion. The supporting documents in all six cases where amount received this year were filed (PB 4). So called alledged difference found by the CIT in the list shown in reply dt.12.3.2021(PB 6-7) viz a vis Schedule E (PB 4) is nothing but an attempt to examine the issue with the microscope. The major reason for difference in the name is that the accountant of the assessee has prepared the ledger account by the popular name or what has been told by the other side however, while giving the affidavit or mentioning the name in the reply the assessee based the AADHAR or PAN so as to provide correct details to the AO. Therefore: i. The creditor Shri Niket Jain is the correct name however his nick name is Amit Chamuniya and therefore the accountant mentioned same name in the ledger account as told .Otherwise he is the old creditor. ii. The creditors Smt. Priyanka Goyal and Smt. Meenakishi Goyal are sisters of Anand Goyal and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he written submission dated 01.08.2023 the assessee has claimed them to be nick names. If there are nick names then how did the auditor verify them? So, in the light of the absence of due verification in finalising audit report, the facts are at variance in themselves and accepted by the Ld. A/R and also clearly as highlighted by the Ld. PCIT in his order u/s 263. 02. In Para 9.3 of the written submission dated 01.08.2023, the Ld. A/R has stated- "9.3 With regard to Para 6 Page 8-10 The Id. CIT has given the instances showing alleged cases of missing information or non- reconciliation of details(kindly refer the following chart), it is submitted as under:- 1. Para 6.1 Id. CIT made a comparison between column no. 31(a) form 3CD (PB II 74-87) speaks of any loan deposit taken in cash exceeding the limit u/s 269 SS which has been shown as nil because no such loan in cash was taken exceeding the limit. In Schedule E (unsecured loans from others) (PB II 74-87) has been shown, partly taken this year and partly carried forward preceding year but all were received through cheque. When both the issues are entirely different then how a comparison could be there. Obviously the conclusion....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the audit report. 06. Furthermore, as highlighted by the Ld. PCIT in the order u/s 263 that the names of the persons who have given loans also do not match as highlighted in Point No. 2 at Page 9 of order u/s 263 and the same is also substantiated from the Ld. A/RS reply dated 01.08.2023 wherein he has stated that the names mentioned in the audit report are nicknames or popularly known names, or grouped together in the name of relative or a business concern etc, again leading to the admission by the Ld. A/R that the conclusion at para 7 at page 10 by the Ld. PCIT that "The above facts came on sample basis make it clear that the details of creditors provided by the assessee are either incomplete or inaccurate or without satisfactory supporting documents. In summary it is evident that the assessee has furnished details of creditors which are different from Schedule E of audit report and are not matching with her own previous submissions furnished before the assessing officer. It is noted that the assessing officer has not satisfactorily examined the main issue of the case." 07.In the end of point no. 11 at page 10, the Ld. PCIT has pointed out on the basis of the facts of the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to report the old loans carry forward this year which is a misleading objection raised by the ld. DR. In any case, the substantive fact that except six parties all the remaining parties were carried forward from preceding year. Pertinently the AO had the access to the assessment record of the current as well as the preceding year of the assessee and various other creditors through the PAN which were available before him. It can't be said that the AO must not have examined the relevant facts taking help of PAN. Furthermore, even the SOP issued by the CBDT dated 10.01.2018 (PB 88) at Step1 itself required the AO to examine only those credits found during the year in the books of accounts and it does not say that the credit of the preceding year should be examined. 1.3 In Para 4 of the written submission submitted by the ld. DR the contents of Para 3 of SCN issued by CIT u/s 263 of the Act has been virtually reproduced. In our submission made to ld. CIT and the Hon'ble ITAT, detailed submission and various supporting evidences are relied upon. The AO having made detailed queries by way of various notices was fully conscious of the issue. 1.4 There is no different reporting do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot be made a ground for invoking S. 263 as held in various cases. Kindly refer: 2.1 In the case of CIT Mumbai Vs Reliance Communication Ltd. [2016] 76 taxmann.com 226 (SC) it was held that: "Section 68, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (FCCBs) - Assessee raised funds by way of FCCBs during year under consideration - Assessing Officer completed assessment accepting income declared by assessee - Commissioner noticed that no investigation was carried out by Assessing Officer to establish name and address, genuineness and creditworthiness of actual subscribers to FCCBs in terms of section 68 - He thus passed a revisional order setting aside assessment - Tribunal noted that Assessing Officer had made detailed enquiries about aforesaid aspect and mere fact that he did not make any reference to said issue in assessment order, could not make said order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenues - High Court by impugned order held that finding recorded by Tribunal being a finding of fact, no substantial question of law arose therefrom - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 11] [In favour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 142(1), along with a questionnaire and directed assessee to furnish documents and evidences of sale transactions of shares and assessee had given point wise reply and transactions were supported by documentary evidences notes, bills, bank transactions and transactions were done on platform of stock exchange - Whether since Assessing Officer had called for and verified all details and documents in connection with purchase and sale of shares in question and after examining same, had taken a possible view that transactions were genuine, revision of assessment order under section 263 by Commissioner being bad in law was to be quashed and set aside - Held, yes [Paras 9, 11 and 12][In favour of assessee]" 2.4 In the case of Nilkanth Stone Industries Vs PCIT, Valsad [2021] 128 taxmann.com 416 (Surat-Trib.) it was held that: "Section 69A, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Revision) - Assessment year 2014-15 - Assessee-firm, engaged in business of stone crushing and selling of crushed stones, filed its return of income - Case was selected for scrutiny and an assessment order was passed under section 143(3) making certain addition - Subsequen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h of query - Whether in aforesaid circumstances, unless Commissioner exercising power under section 263 brought on record any evidence showing that order of Assessing Officer was erroneous, as same was passed without application of mind or Assessing Officer had made an incorrect assessment of fact or incorrect application of law, revisional order passed by him was not sustainable - Held, yes - Whether since Commissioner failed to do so, impugned revisional order was to be set aside - Held, yes [Paras 21 and 22] [In favour of assessee]." 2.6 In the case of PCIT, Bikaner vs Dilip Kumar Swami [2019] 106 taxmann.com 59 (Raj.) it was held that: "Section 68, read with section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Bank deposits) - Assessment year 2009-10 - Assessee filed his return declaring certain taxable income - In course of assessment, Assessing Officer noted that assessee had deposited certain amount in his bank account - On being enquired about source of said deposit, assessee explained that it represented amount received from various purchasers against sale of goods i.e., tractors and accessories thereof - Assessing Officer accepted assessee's explanation and co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h proceedings, Assessing Officer found that there was introduction of amount in capital account of assessee - Further, assessee had received loan from his brother - With respect to introduction of capital, assessee had pointed out that he was an NRI for over two years and he had made foreign remittances over a period of time - As regards unsecured loan received from his brother, assessee pointed out that he was running a successful business of trading, was engaged in various commercial and non-commercial activities and he was man of standing and means - Assessing Officer accepted explanation of assessee and did not make any addition in respect of those amounts - Whether once Assessing Officer carried out detailed inquiries, it was not open for Commissioner to reopen issues on mere apprehension and surmises - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, Tribunal was justified in setting aside impugned revisional order - Held, yes [Para 20] [In favour of assessee]" 2.9 In this case the Hon'ble ITAT in Shri Keshoraipatan Sahkari Sugar Mills ltd. vs. PCIT (2023) 223 TTJ (Jp) 922 as held as under: "11. Clearly, therefore, so long as the action of the AO cannot be said to be lacking bona fides,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the CIT does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. (viii) The CIT, before exercising his jurisdiction under s. 263 of the Act must have material on record to arrive at a satisfaction, and (ix) If the AO has made enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings on the relevant issues and the assessee has given detailed explanation by a letter in writing and the AO allows the claim on being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the decision of the AO cannot be held to be erroneous simply because in his order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard." Hence the Impugned Order u/s 263 may kindly be quashed. The above submissions are based on the information supplied and as instructed by the client.'' 2.6 We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and have carefully perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions cited in the orders passed by the authorities below as well as cited before us and we have also gone through the impugned order passed u/s 263. The assessee has dealership of Indian Oils Corporation Limited und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, the PCIT has to satisfy of twin conditions simultaneously, namely (i) the order of the AO sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If any one of them is absent, s. 263 cannot be invoked. This provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the AO; it is only when an order is erroneous as also prejudicial to Revenue's interest, that the provision will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of the fact or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO. However, every loss of revenue as a consequence of the order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. For example, if the AO has adopted one of the two or more courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and AO has taken one view with which the PCIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing documents/loose papers & other valuables were found and impounded by the Department. In this connection, you are hereby required to furnish the following information/ details/ documents/ confirmations/ explanation, etc. as under: - 1. Please give brief note on business activities carried out by you. 2. Please produce for verification your complete books of account with audit report, bills voucher etc. maintained by you which, may support your claims made in the return under scrutiny. **** 5. Kindly furnish details of all bank Accounts in the following format. Kindly also furnish copies of all bank accounts from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 with narration debit and credit entries. S. No. Name and Address of Account Holder Name and Address of the Branch Account number Nature of the account 7. In case you have taken any secured loan, kindly furnish the details of securities/assets / mortgaged/furnished for obtaining such loans, also explain the use of that loan. 8. Kindly furnish confirmations of unsecured loans/creditors/squared up accounts along evidence of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors, raised during the year. Kindly furnish the copy ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19) (Rs.) Total amount as on 31.03.2019 (Rs.) PB No. 1 Ajay Vijayvergiya AGDPV3368F 400000 400000 9,42- 44 2 Nikit Jain (alias Amit Chamuniya BCBPJ3200K 40000 40000 28 3 Priyanka Goyal ADXPA9974B 500000 500000 29 4 Minakshi Goyal AIIPG4037D 500000 500000 30 5 Damyanti Devi BANPC2746K 260000 260000 10 6 Dinesh Bairwa Kumar ALXPB7578A 1796000 1796000 7 Ghnashyam Chourasiya ABCPC3097Q 50000 50000 12 8 Raghuveer Singh AZVPS7052E 500000 500000 13 9 Jitendra Solanki Singh BLDPS9400B 200000 200000 10 Manish Chourasiya AIYPC6240L 1363804 1363804 15 11 Manorma Devi CFCPD9444Q 250028 250028 16 12 Nawal Chourasiya ABQPC2283E 100000 100000 17 13 Rajendra Kumar Gupta ABVPG8047M 250000 250000 18 14 Neeraj Gurjar ANUPG1698R 700000 300000 1000000 19,52 15 Poornima Chourasiya BJLPC4538G 150000 150000 20 16 Ishwar Chand Chourasiya ABGPC7609C 584000 584000 21 17 Shiv Kumar Chourasiya DAJP....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a direct source of receipt of Rs. 17,96,000/-. 3.3 Shri Jitendra Singh Solanki- Rs.2,00,000/- He had sufficient bank balances prior to transfer the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on dated 10.09.2018, as evident from his Bank account statement. Copy of IT, and bank account are enclosed herewith (PB 10-11). Thus, here also, there is a direct source of receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- 3.4 Shri Neeraj Gurjar- Rs. 3,00,000/- He had sufficient bank balances prior to transfer the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- on dated 11/01/2019 and 25/01/2019 respectively as evident from his bank account statement. Copy of ITR and Bank account are enclosed herewith (PB 12-13). Thus here also, there is direct source of receipt of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 3.5 Shri Nikit Jain- Rs. 40,000/- He had sufficient bank balances prior to transfer the amount of Re 40.007- on date, 21.07.2018. Thus here also, there is a direct source of receipt of Rs. 40.0004. 3.6 Shri Shiv Kumar Chourasiya- Rs. 10,000/- He had sufficient bank balances prior to transfer the amount of Rs. 10,000- on date 07/06/2018. Thus here also, there is a direct source of receipt of Rs. 10,000/-. 4. Confirmation from almost all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cord itself. The assesse, has been submitting replies to the statutory notices to the extent it was practicable and possible in as much as the assessee was hardly dependent upon the third parties i.e. the Cash creditors and the trade creditors, who were not bound to immediately act upon the request of the assessee. After making efforts, it will be observed that in almost all cases the compliances have been made. Still if your goodself finds that some detail from cash creditors and trade creditors is lacking, your good self may make direct enquiries as per the provision of the act. The complete addresses are already available in the confirmation cum affidavits along with their respective PAN no. Therefore, there is hardly any question of invoking sec. 144 in the facts of the present case." **** 2.8 From a perusal of the communication exchanged between the AO and the Assessee, the undisputed and vital facts emerging are that all the creditors are regular income tax Assessee's and their PAN were available before the AO through the affidavits and submissions made before him. The list showing the details of the creditors and submitted along with reply dt. 19.04.2021 to the Assessing O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessee filled copies of Computation of Total Income, ITRs, Bank A/c and confirmation through dully sworned affidavits (copy of which are available in the assessee's paper book pages 41-54). The affidavits also explained the immediate source from where loans were given to the Assessee. A detailed submission was made by the assessee vide its letter of 19th April, 2021 placed at assessee's paper book pages 35 to 40 and reproduced herein above wherein detailed explanation was given in para 3 with reference to each and every creditor and thus, all the three conditions i.e. identity, the credit worthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions were fully established and in our opinion, the AO was not required to make any further enquiry, acting as a quasi-judicial authority. No significant facts, evidence or circumstance have been shown by the ld. PCIT to justify interfere and to substitute his opinion under the grab of finding error, except a few minor discrepancies, which are being dealt with separately. 2.10 While finding errors u/s 263 in the assessment/other orders, the Revisionary Authority must also know the legal boundaries within which, the Assessing Off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the decisions in the cases of Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (supra) and Narain Singla (supra) and Chemsworth P Ltd. (supra), all followed in Annu Agrotech (supra) by this bench. 2.12. Now we shall deal with the other grounds raised in the impugned order. 2.13 The ld. PCIT in the impugned order has also given some examples alleging missing information or non-reconciliation of the details filed by the assessee to justify its conclusion. We have carefully gone through the examples cited by the ld. PCIT, vis-à-vis the detailed explanation, clarifying the cases of so-called missing and non-reconciliation details, and found that the same are of trivial natures, not very material significant, so as to justify invoking of S. 263. They are more of the nature of suspicion than substance. It was submitted that Raghuvendra Singh, S. No. 5, is the proprietor of Jagdamba Tractor hence are the same person. Names of Smt. Priyanka Goyal and Smt. Meenakshi Goyal being the sisters of Sh. Anand Goyal, have been named accordingly in the Schedule E by the accountant as told to him. In case of Nikit Jain, his nickname Amit Chamunia has been mentioned in the Schedule. It's a common practice that the accounta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has given his name, parental address, PAN, the amount given to the assessee and the year or the date when given. Otherwise also it was not relevant for old creditors. The allegation of same font is of no significance. It is not the case of the ld. PCIT that he made inquiries from the Oath Commissioner before whom, sworn statements were made. In fact, the ld. PCIT even did not challenge the veracity or the genuineness of the affidavits. Therefore, simply saying that they were of the same font does not lead anywhere, being a mere suspicion. 2.16 The ld. PCIT made a comparison between Para 31(a) of the Form 3CD, (PB pages 74 to 87) showing Nil, which speaks of any loan/deposit taken in cash exceeding the prescribed limit u/s 269SS of the Act, and Schedule E (unsecured loans from others) with TAR showing loans taken alleged and contradiction was considered as an error. However, on a careful consideration, we are of the strong opinion that there is no substantive incorrectness nor contradiction for the simple reason that the ld. Tax Auditor remarked Nil as he did not find any loans/deposit taken in cash exceeding the limit in violation of S. 269SS but that do not mean that no loan was....