TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 860
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mplete and correct. As such, the AR requested that the common grounds of appeal as submitted manually/physically should be taken into consideration for the purpose of the aforesaid appeal. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are produced hereunder: 1. That the order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 is illegal, void ab initio & unsustainable as the same has been passed without following mandatory requirement of law. 2. That the Order Passed under Section 263 is bad in law since, the twin conditions as embedded in Section 263 i.e. the order passed by the AO is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interest of revenue have not been satisfied. 3. That the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 and setting aside the assessment order for fresh enquiry without appreciating the fact that the order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. That the order passed under section 263 is without properly appreciating the facts & evidence of the case is unjust and arbitrary. 4. That the Order Passed under Section 263 is bad in law since, the order passed by the assessing officer is not in any case prejudicial to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the PCIT. As such the order passed by the Ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act is bad in law. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the fact that the issue raised by him in notice u/s 263 was before the AO and as such the jurisdiction on this issue u/s 263 cannot be assumed by him. 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, of the case, Pr. CIT has erred both on facts and in law in setting aside the issue of allocation of expenses to the file of the AO without properly appreciating the explanation of assessee given during the assessment proceedings brought on record. That PCIT has failed to appreciate that separate books of the eligible unit are being maintained from year to year and the same have been have been verified by the assessing officers and by the TPO. That the PCIT has ignored the detailed verification made by A.O. and TPO while passing the order under section 263. 11. That without prejudice to above grounds, on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, Ld. Pr. CIT erred in branding assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PAN AAACK1375K, engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper products, as well as the production, collection, and distribution of steam and electricity (power). The appellant filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2017-18 on 16.11.2017, declaring NIL income after claiming a deduction under Section 80IA amounting to Rs. 44,56,27,360/-as per the Income Tax Act, 1961. The number of units run under the group are as under: - Particulars Paper Unit Power Unit I- (70 TPH) Power Unit II- (100 TPH) Year 02.02.1985 01.02.2002 01.05.2005 Stream Manufacturing of paper Distribution of Steam &Electricity Distribution of Steam & Electricity Unit Non-Specified Unit Non-Specified Unit Specified Unit eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv) The case of the appellant was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS, and a statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 09/08/2018 to address the following issues: - S. No. Issues I. Claim of any other amount allowable as deduction in schedule BP II. Depreciation claim III. Specified domestic transactions IV. Deduction claimed u/s80IA/80IAB/80IAC/80IB/80IC/80IBA/10/10AA V. Invest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le unit 70TPH Reply of the appellant on 05.01.2021 along with relevant annexure [Page no 149-151A of the PB] along with complete books of accounts of eligible unit [Page No 122- 255 of the PB] 18.01.2021 Show cause proposing addition in respect of power and steam Reply given on 20.01.2021 and 22.01.2021 enclosed at page no 293A-356 of the PB 28.01.2021 Show cause proposing addition in respect of power and steam Reply given on 29.01.2021 enclosed at page no 359-372 of the PB Questionnaire issued by Faceless Assessment Centre 07.12.2020 Question was asked regarding details of deduction claimed u/s 80IA [Relevant page no 141 of the PB] Reply of the appellant dated 05.04.2021 [Page no 143- 147 of the PB] 1. The appellant has clarified that the deduction claimed was Rs. 43.74 crore and also submitted form 10CCB along with separate balance sheet of eligible unit. It was also explained that the activities of this unit commenced on 13.05.2005 and the appellant has consistently been allowed deduction from AY 2012-13. 2. The appellant also submitted that TPO vide order dated 13.01.2021 where unit wise calculation of eligible unit has been accepted 3. Detai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Rs. 33,31,67,392/-. The sale price of the steam at Rs. 96,91,03,975/- has been accepted by the TPO (refer to page no. 130 and 132, relevant para 8.1 and 8.3). e) However, the TPO has recommended an adjustment for the price variation of Rs. 9,79,36,702/- related to the captive power consumption by the paper unit. This adjustment was suggested using the external CUP (Comparable Uncontrolled Price) method, with an average price taken at 5.57, as opposed to the 6.44 considered by the assessee. (Relevant page no.132) ISSUE: ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ADJUSTMENT OF Rs. 9,79,36,703/- AS SUGGESTED IN THE TPO ORDER UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) It was clarified that the Assessing Officer (AO) appropriately adjusted the deduction and recalculated the eligible deduction to Rs. 73,72,44,966/-. However, this recalculated deduction was constrained by the total income of Rs. 44,56,27,360/-. Consequently, there was no substantive impact on the final assessment, and the AO's order was deemed accurate.(Relevant page no.63-64) ISSUE: DEDUCTION OF Rs. 495636170/- ALLOWED BY THE AO Upon reviewing the standalone profit and loss account submitted for the power unit, it was demonstrated that the expenses relat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udit objections raised by the audit party in respect of following issues: - a) Deduction claimed u/s 80IA needs proper verification. That the appellant has shown loss in no eligible unit and huge profit in the eligible business 2. Furthermore, in the concluding paragraph it has been pointed out by the AO that the audit objections can be settled by invoking the provisions of section 263. Please refer page no.78. 3. The AO highlighted to the joint commissioner audit that detailed enquiry was carried out by the AO in respect of deduction claimed u/s 80IA. It was also clarified that the eligible unit commenced its operation on 13.05.2005 and the block period starts from AY 2006-07 and expires in AY 2020-21. 74-78 Show cause notice u/s 154 26.02.2024 Limited issue of adjustment of 97936703/- made u/s 92CA(3) 79- 81 Reply in response to Show cause notice u/s 154 01.03.2024 It was explained that the adjustment of Rs. 97936703/- is not required for book profits. 82- 84 Order passed u/s 154 30.03.2024 Proceedings dropped 85- 89 8. The Ld. PCIT invoked provisions of section 263 of the Act by observing as under: 4. Attention of the assessee is invited to the amendment in se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, the case should not have been selected under CASS on this issue. In the year under consideration the assessee had incurred huge losses in the non-eligible unit and huge profits in the eligible unit, which mandated the AO to verify the expenses claimed and bifurcation of common expenses in these two category of units. The AO had not called for requisite enough details to examine these facts and passed the assessment order without making requisite inquires/examination of data on this issue, The issue in question in present proceedings is not the eligibility of deduction to eligible unit which is continuing from past years, but the examination of profitability of the two category of units based on bifurcation of expenses between these two categories bf units particularly in the given facts of huge profits of eligible unit & huge losses of non-eligible unit. 5.4 It is observed from the online records available that the Faceless AO had passed the assessment order without making any requisite inquiries or verification of claim of huge deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IA(4)(iv) which was one of the CASS parameters. The assessment order had been passed by the AO without calling....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... if it is alleged that some of the expenses of the Non Specified units are attributed to the Specified Unit, the resultant loss of the Non Specified Unit get reduced and correspondingly deduction of the Specified unit will stand increased, which will be revenue neutral exercise and as such the order passed by the assessing officer cannot be said to the prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 11. That the order passed under Section 263 is bad in law since, the Ld. PCIT has passed the order under Section 263 without conducting any enquiry and had he conducted any enquiry, this fact would have been very clear that the order is not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. That the deduction has been claimed after adjusting loss of the non-specified unit and as such any shifting of expenses as alleged by the PCIT would result in no loss to the revenue. 12. That the Order Passed under Section 263 is bad in law as the PCIT has failed to examine the documents submitted before the Ld. PCIT and records available before A.O. 13. That the Order passed under Section 263 is bad in law, since the PCIT had the privilege of looking at the consolidated Profit & Loss account and also the st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pinion on the point raised in the notice issued by him and, therefore, the CIT lacks jurisdiction to invoke s. 263 of the Act. Thus, he pleaded that the Order passed u/s 263 is illegal and is liable to be quashed. 15. The AR further submitted that the Ld. PCIT initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act vide show cause notice u/s 263 on 27.02.2024 seeking to revise the assessment order passed on 21.06.2021 with a view that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and alleged that the AO had failed to carry out necessary inquiries and verification on the issue of verification of apportionment of expenses between eligible unit claiming deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv) and non-eligible unit'. As per the Ld. PCIT in show cause notice u/s 263, the following issues has not been considered by the AO while passing the order: - I. Quantum of allowability of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv) II. SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS III. THE APPELLANT DID NOT PROVIDE THE SCHEDULE AND ANNEXURES IV. APPELLANT DID NOT PROVIDE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS A/C OF NON-ELIGIBLE UNIT V. THE AO DID NOT EXAMINE APPROPRIATION OF EXPENSES AMONGST ELIGIBLE AND NON ELIGIBLE ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eciate that the appellant had not provided annexure and schedules in respect of form 10CCB. c) Failed to examine quantum of allowability of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act d) Failed to appreciate that no separate books for power unit and manufacturing unit were maintained e) Failed to appreciate that the documents submitted before the jurisdictional AO/ TPO were not uploaded for the perusal of NFAC authorities In support, the Ld. AR filed a written synopsis and a paper book comprising of 66 pages and 385 pages respectively which are placed on record for ready reference. The Ld. AR submitted that the proceedings under section 263 were initiated on the basis of the audit objections as is noted by the learned Commissioner in his order. The honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills [2006 (9) TMI 157 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court] wherein held Commissioner of Income-tax not justified in invoking jurisdiction under section 263 on the strength of an audit note - Decided in favour of assessee. He pleaded that the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the act is bad in law and it deserves to be quashed. 19. Per con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lity of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act. Further, no separate books for power unit and manufacturing unit were maintained and the appellant failed to provide annexure and schedules in respect of form 10CCB. 2. The AO did not examine appropriation of expenses amongst eligible and non eligible unit 3. Non submission of vouchers and statement of TDS deduction 4. No segregation in respect of depreciation allowed for paper unit and electricity unit 90-92 Reply in response to Show cause notice u/s 263 11.03.2024 ISSUE: Quantum of allowability of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv) 1. It was explained that the appellant has constantly availed the benefit of 80IA from AY 2012-13 till AY 2021-22. It was further explained that the assessment for the earlier years vis AY 2012-13 to AY 2016-17 has already been completed and the deduction u/s 80IA has duly been accepted in every assessment year based upon the information submitted through the SAP Software. (Internal page no 2-3 of reply and relevant page no 94-95) 2. It was further clarified that the AO had duly examined the records maintained by the assessee to justify the claim of deduction u/s 80IA through no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e no 108-109) ISSUE: NON SUBMISSION OF VOUCHERS AND DETAILS OF TDS DEDUCTION It was explained that complete bills and vouchers were produced and verified by the AO. Furthermore, all the expenses were also verified by the TPO. That the TDS returns were already available with the AO and the TDS on the expenses have duly been deducted. Hence, the allegation regarding the non deduction of TDS is incorrect. (Internal page no 1718 of reply and relevant page no 109-110) ISSUE: NO SEGREGATION IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION ALLOWED FOR PAPER UNIT AND ELECTRICITY UNIT The appellant has submitted separate balance sheet and profit & loss account of power unit (eligible unit). Further, separate computation regarding depreciation amount eligible as per income tax along with the block of assets has duly been submitted. (Internal page no 19 of reply and relevant page no 111) 93-119 Order u/s 263 30.03.2024 Partially setting aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) on limited issue regarding verification of apportionment of expenses between eligible unit claiming deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv) and non eligible unit 357-399 23. Apropos ground no 2-4, the appellant has challenged that the order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....964 1296889783 Chemical B 2975818 4366687 7342505 Water C 322518 460740 783258 Other Manufacturing Cost Manpower D 11328190 16183128 27511318 Consumables/repair & Maintenance E 10769184 15802602 26571786 Depreciation F 11440521 22059387 33499908 Finance and Admin Cost Finance Cost @ 10.80 G 1037139 1521888 2559027 Admin Cost H 6852422 9789174 16641596 TOTAL COST I=A+B+ C+D+E+F+G+H 570337610 841461570 1411799180 SALE REVENUE J 1089623351 1694060731 2783684082 PROFIT K=J-I 519285741 852599161 1371884902 PERCENTAGE L=K/J*100 47.66% 50.33% 23.5 Without prejudice the above arguments the AR drew the attention of the bench towards the fact that even if the combined profit ratio is made applicable then also there is no prejudice to the revenue. The working was made taking into consideration the profit rate 49.22% Table C: Revised Profits after considering the adjustment of Rs. 1.50 crore Partic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that provisions of section 263 can only be invoked when twin conditions viz; order should be erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue, are fulfilled. The relevant text of the order is as under: - Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 1983-84 - Whether in order to invoke section 263 Assessing Officer's order must be erroneous and also prejudicial to revenue and if one of them is absent, i.e., if order of Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to revenue, recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) - Held, yes -Whether if due to an erroneous order of ITO, revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to interests of revenue - Held, yes - Assessee-company entered into agreement for sale of estate of rubber plantation - As purchaser could not pay installments as scheduled in agreement, extension of time for payment of installments was given on condition of vendee paying damages for loss of agricultur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If any one of them is absent i.e. if the assessment order is not erroneous but it is prejudicial to the Revenue, Sec.263 cannot be invoked. Further the appellant has placed reliance upon the following case laws: - a) [2024] 158 taxmann.com 514 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. National Dairy Development Board* b) HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA Principal Commissioner of Incometax v. Britannia Industries Ltd.* c) [2022] 145 taxmann.com 73 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. S N Tradelink (P.) Ltd.* d) [2022] 145 taxmann.com 139 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shukla Dairy (P.) Ltd.* e) [2023] 155 taxmann.com 408 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. ShivshahiPunarvasanPrakalp Ltd.* f) [2023] 148 taxmann.com 314 (Calcutta) HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA Commissioner of Income-tax v. M. K. Foundation* g) [2020] 119 taxmann.com 358 (Karnataka) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Chemsworth (P.) Ltd.* h) [2020] 119 taxmann.com 318 (Karnataka) H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is of allocation of various expenses which is produced as follows: - Item Basis TPO Remarks Coal Consumption Actual Part of Value determined by TPO. The steam is valued by cost method and power is valued by CUP method. 1) Part of cost sheet submitted before TPO vide reply dated 05.01.2021 at page no.149 to 150A. 2) Ledger account submitted before TPO at page no.169-187 3) Ledger account submitted before CIT at page no.169-187 Chemical Consumption Actual Ledger enclosed at page no 160 to 167 Water Actual Reply dated 05.01.2021 submitted to TPO enclosed at page no.255 Manpower Actual Reply dated 05.01.2021 submitted to TPO enclosed at page no.243 Consumables Allocation on monthly basis Ledger enclosed at page no 188 Depreciation Actual Based on company act in books of accounts and income tax act in computation. 1) Ledger account submitted at page no.189-190 2) Depreciation chart as per income tax of eligible unit please refer page 7 3) Audited profit and loss account Please refer page 5-6. Finance cost Other method Compared the interest rate with effective cost of borrowings 1) Part of TPO report and benchmarking is done based on cost of borrowing. P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed deductions under Section 80IA in previous years, and thus, it cannot be alleged for the year under consideration that separate books of accounts were not maintained for eligible units, especially given that the same SAP software was used in those prior years. Accordingly, the ground no 7 raised by the appellant is hereby allowed. 29. In respect of ground no 10-11, the Ld. AR has argued that the assessment u/s 143(3) was completed after detailed enquiry and examination of books of account. The AR submitted a summary of notices issued from time to time and the reply furnished in response to the notices issued. The same is being reproduced as under; - Sr. No Notice issued under section Date of Notice Date of submission of documents of physical verification Authority before which submissions made 1 143(2) 09-08-2018 20-08-2018 DCIT, Central Circle 2 142(1) 25-02-2019 02-05-2019 DCIT, Central Circle 3 142(1) 25-02-2019 04-05-2019 DCIT, Central Circle 4 142(1) 25-02-2019 20-05-2019 DCIT, Central Circle 5 142(1) 25-02-2019 25-05-2019 DCIT, Central Circle 6 142(1) 25-02-2019 03-06-2019 DCIT, Central Circle 7 142(1) 25-02-2019 03-06-2019 DCIT, Cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accounts for the undertaking along with all the schedules and annexure. Also furnish the genuineness of the claims like commissioning certificate etc." The query was once again raised by the AO to verify the deduction claimed u/s 80IA in response to which the copy of the Form 10CCB, Audited Balance sheet and P&L account of the eligible unit were once again submitted on 07-04-2021. 3. Notice u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 02-012021 issued by Transfer Pricing Officer Para 2 of the Notice "Furnish complete Financial, Audit Report and Computation of Income of Power generating Unit-I (Non-Eligible Unit during the FY 2016-17) and Unit-II an eligible unit during the FY 2016-17." In response to the query raised by the TPO, the assessee filed a response vide letter dated 05-012021 in which it is clearly mentioned that most of the information requisitioned in the notice is already requested when the assessee appeared before the TPO for physical hearing held on 02-01-2021 and which was submitted in hard copy vide letter dated 04-01-2021. Further, the response to the query raised is reproduced as under: "Audited Financial statements of the power generating units fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant has duly furnished the requisite documents which were duly examined during assessment proceedings. As such, the allegation of the PCIT that the AO failed to make any enquiry is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 29.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1 v. SPML Infra Ltd [2024] 164 taxmann.com 505 held that where there was due application of mind by the Assessing Officer after making proper enquiries jurisdiction under section 263 could not be exercised. Further the appellant placed reliance upon the following case laws: - a) [2023] 146 taxmann.com 281 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Cartier Leaflin (P.) Ltd. b) 2017] 77 taxmann.com 15 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIT v. NiravModi* c) Meerut Roller Flour Mills (P.) Ltd v Commissioner of Income tax 110 taxmann.com 170 (Allahabad)/[2019] 267 Taxman 18 d) CIT v Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd.196 Taxman 368 e) Copy of judgment of ITAT, Amritsar Bench SMT. ANITA MALPOTRA V.INCOME-TAX OFFICER 109 TTJ 76 f) Loil Continental Foods Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT in ITA No. 577/Chd/2019 Chd- Trib. g) Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d balance sheet on the Income Tax portal; however, this requirement does not negate the fact that separate books of accounts were maintained, especially given that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents to substantiate this assertion. 29.8 In view of the above facts and circumstances, the assessee has in fact maintained separate books of accounts. Therefore, the ground no. 10-11 raised by the Appellant is allowed. 30. In ground no 5-6, the appellant challenged that the Ld. PCIT has failed to make an enquiry and emphasized that the provisions of section 263 can be invoked only if it is preceded by some enquiry by the PCIT. The AR argued that the condition to hold an assessment order being erroneous could be proved only if the PCIT undertakes certain enquiry which has not been done in present case. 30.1 The AR submitted a list of documents furnished before the PCIT/AO to prove that the allegation of the PCIT is unfounded and without any application of mind. Particulars Remarks Copy of notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 25.02.2019 along with the reply 133-39(I) Questionnaire issued by Faceless Assessment Centre dated 03.04.2021 and reply dated 05.04.2021 specifically ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....COURT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. VERSUS KOHINOOR FOODS LIMITED g) 2017 (9) TMI 1238 - DELHI HIGH COURT PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 VERSUS MODICARE LIMITED h) 2017 (4) TMI 1435 - DELHI HIGH COURT PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12 VERSUS LAKSHYA SETH i) DwarkadhisBuildwell Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT - ITA No.3097/Del/2014 - 109 taxmann.com 5 (Delhi - Trib.)order dated 1 July 2019. j) 2022 (8) TMI 510 - ITAT CUTTACKASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA VERSUS PR. CIT, BHUBANESWAR k) 2022 (3) TMI 1282 - ITAT DELHIEVON TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. VERSUS ITO WARD 1 (3) DEHRADUN l) 2021 (10) TMI 273 - ITAT RAIPURM/S R.R. ISPAT LIMITED VERSUS CIT-1, RAIPUR m) 2019 (12) TMI 253 - ITAT MUMBAIM/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED VERSUS PR. CIT-5 n) 2018 (2) TMI 2025 - ITAT MUMBAISHRI SURENDRA L. HIRANANDANI VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - I MUMBAI o) SANJAY JAIN V. PCIT ITA NO. 140/CHD/2021 p) 2024 (8) TMI 1181 - ITAT AHMEDABAD POSUN CREDIT CO. OP. SOCIETY LIMITED VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA-1, VADODARA. 30.4 The Authorized Representative (AR) has submitted all relevant documents before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), which were als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the reliance on audit findings, despite the AO's prior acknowledgment of the separate books of accounts maintained by the assessee. 31.3 In view of the above discussion referring the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that the proceedings u/s 263 were culminated on the basis of audit objections without application of mind. 31.4 The Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sohana Woollen Mills reported in [2008] 296 ITR 238 held that invocation of section 263 merely based upon audit objection is bad in law. Further the view is supported by the following case laws relied by the Ld. AR: - a) [2024] 162 taxmann.com 759 (Delhi - Trib.) IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'A' AhlconParenterals (India) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax* MAY 21, 2024 b) [2024] 163 taxmann.com 574 (Kolkata - Trib.) IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH 'C' Rajesh Kumar Jalan v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax c) [2024] 158 taxmann.com 686 (Mumbai - Trib.) IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH A' Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central (1)* d) [2022] 145 taxmann.com 590 (Calcutta) HIGH COURT OF....