TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 523
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....side the assessment passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act. 2. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara (PCIT) erred in fact and in law in exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) despite the fact that the conditions specified for invoking such extra-ordinary jurisdiction were not satisfied. 3. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned PCIT erred in directing to frame fresh assessment on an issue already considered and verified during the course of assessment u/s. 143(3). 4. The learned PCIT erred in law and in fact 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
.... by the assessee). Further, the PCIT observed that as per tax audit report in Form No. 3CD, the assessee has shown shortage of 1,80,86,187/- SCM unit of PNG. Accordingly, the shortage of PNG claimed by the assessee 49.26% of the total purchases of PNG. The Pr. CIT observed that the assessee submitted reply during the assessment proceedings and the said reply was not supported with any evidence to justify the huge shortage of PNG. Thus, the Pr. CIT issued show cause notice dated 11-03-2022 u/s. 263 of the Act. After taking cognizance of the assessee's reply, the Pr. CIT held that the assessment passed u/s. 143(3) in the assessee's case is erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Thus, Pr. CIT set aside the assessment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A) has not made out the case as to how the assessment order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 6. The ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee at the time of assessment proceedings has not given any details as to the shortage of PNG and therefore in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwears P. Ltd. and others (2012) 345 ITR 315 which considered the ratio laid down in earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) has invoked the provisions of section 263 and directed the Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment order. The ld. D.R. relied upon the order of....