TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in law as well as on the facts of the case in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 by wrongly and incorrectly holding that the subjected assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 29.09.2021 is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 being contrary to the provisions of law and facts on record, hence, the proceedings initiated u/s 263 hence, the impugned order dated 26.03.2024 deserves to be quashed. 3. The Id. PCIT Udaipur, erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in wrongly setting aside the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 in as much, the Id. PCIT, Udaipur completely ignored/did not judiciously appreciate the detailed written submission filed before him, though was taken note of. He even ignored that the ld. AO raised a specific query on invoking (or otherwise) of S. 115BBE which was duly replied by the appellant in a great detail and therefore the allegations of the PCIT in the impugned are factually incorrect, unjustified and hence, the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 26.03.2024 deserves to be quashed.'' 3. Brief facts of the case as emerges from the assessment order dated 29-09-2021 are that the case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... PCIT as to passing of order u/s 263 of the Act is as under:- ''6. I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the enumerated from the material available on record and my observations are as under: - (i) The assessee had accepted undisclosed& Additional Income of Rs. 76,00,000/- in his statement duly recorded during survey proceedings. (ii) Out of this admitted additional income of Rs. 76,00,000/-. Rs. 9,50,000/- was on account of difference in cash balance Rs. 45,50,000/- on account of undisclosed sundry debtors and balance of Rs. 21,00,000/- on account of unaccounted expenses for construction. (iii) In the ITR, the assessee declared the aforesaid sum of Rs. 76,00,000/- under the head 'Business Income'. The A.O/NaFAC, while completing the assessment u/s 143(3)/144B of the Act, accepted the same without verifying the sources of that income, particularly the business nexus of such Unexplained (Admitted to be as additional Income) sums, respectively. (iv) The applicable tax should have been charged u/s 69 as Unexplained Investment for Rs. 66,50,000 (45,50,000 +21,00,000), AND Rs. 9,50,000/- (Unexplained Money) should have b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; Further, as per clause (b) to Explanation 2 of Section 263 says about "if the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim It reads as under:- (Amendment of section 263 w.e.f 01.06.2015). 67. In section 263 of the Income-tax Act, in sub-section (1), the Explanation shall be numbered as Explanation 1 thereof and after Explanation 1 as so numbered, the following Explanation shall be inserted with effect from the 1st day of June, 2015, namely: - "Explanation 2. -For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, - (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion u's 263. It is no doubt true that for making a valid order u/s 263, it is essential for the Commissioner to record an express finding that the order sought to be revised was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. However, there is nothing in section 263 to show that the Commissioner should in all cases record his final conclusion on the points in controversy before him. The legislative intent to bring the amendment was to make clear the provisions of Explanation to section 263 and to reduce the litigations in this regard which is well supported in view of the clear words used in clause (a) of the Explanation 2 to section 263 (1) wherein it is mentioned that the order passed by the AO shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, if in the opinion of the PCIT the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made. If the order is passed without application of mind. such order will fall under the category of erroneous order'' 8. Considering the above facts, it is held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer (NFAC) u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the IT Act dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut it is prejudicial to the Revenue, Sec.263 cannot be invoked. This provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer; 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. 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 CIT 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)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tire legal & factual position, touching each and every relevant aspect therein. It cannot be said nor it is so alleged that the AO did not raise this SCN and the AO did not apply its mind on the issue in hand. The reply dated 27.09.2021 is reproduced hereunder in verbatim: "A. Proposed taxing at higher rate u/s 115BBE: Through the above captioned show cause notice and draft assessment order, the assessee has been asked as to why the tax be not computed as per the provisions of S. 115BBE of the Act, on the amount of additional income surrendered being Rs. 76,00,000/- in the course of survey conducted on, dated 16.01.2019. In this connection our submissions are as under: 1. Provisions of section 115BBE: The provisions of section 115BBE(1) reads as under: "(1) Where the total income of an assessee, - 1. includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139; or 2. determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es where the nature and source of investments or acquisition of money, bullion or expenditure incurred are not explained at all, or not satisfactorily explained, then, the value of such investments and money, or value of articles not recorded in the books of accounts or the unexplained expenditure may be deemed to be the income. In view of the above, it can be said that for triggering section 115BBE what is relevant is whether income remains disclosed or undisclosed or explained or unexplained. If the income is disclosed or explained as mandated by the law, then same would be taxable in the ordinary manner. On the other hand, if the income is undisclosed or unexplained then the provisions of section 115BBE may be triggered depending upon the facts involved in each of the cases. The moment a satisfactory explanation is provided about nature and source then the source would stand explained and therefore, the income would be computed under the appropriate head of income as per the provisions of the Act. 4. On perusal of the Finance Minister's speech and Explanatory Memorandum (2), it is clear that the legislative intent behind introduction of section 115BBE was to curb the ge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ards the additional income if any arising from the real estate business or its ancillary activities etc. and the assessee also admitted additional income of the current year as a matter of abundant precaution as arising from the real estate business. 6.3 Even the heads under which the additional income was admitted also, supported the contention that the entire additional income pertained to /arose from business activities only. 6.4 It is submitted that the profit arising from the real estate transaction of the purchase and sale, were advanced /given to various debtors. There apart, additional cash found also arose from same business activity. There apart, additional income of Rs. 21,00,000/- on account of construction activity, was in fact related to the construction of the apartment, villas, houses etc for the buyers during the relevant previous years. The said table shows the utilization/availability of the funds under different heads of the asset/expenditure etc and their nature also suggest that the additional income was related to/arose during the course of the real estate business only. The investment/ outgoing is clearly identifiable with the regular stock....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sthan High Court in case of CIT vs Bajargan Traders [ITA No. 258/2017 dated 12/09/2017] has held that when the assessee is dealing in sale of food grains, rice and oil seeds and the excess stock which is found during survey is stock of rice then, it can be said that investment in procurement of such stock of rice is clearly identifiable and related to the regular business stock of the assessee. Therefore, the investment in the excess stock is to be brought to tax under head "business income" and not under the head income from other sources. 7.3 In case of Shri Lovish Singhal vs ITO (ITA No 142 to 146/Jodh/2018 for AY 2014- 15 dated 25 May 2018), the Jodhpur Tribunal applying the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the Bajargan Traders (supra), held that the lower authorities were not justified in taxing the surrender made on account of excess stock and excess cash found U/s 69 of the Act and accordingly held that there is no justification for taxing such income U/s 115BBE of the Act. In view of the facts & circumstances, judicial guidelines and the statutory provisions, the additional income declared during survey of Rs. 76,00,000/- cannot b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....court later on) this also held in the case of CIT vs G.M. Mittal Stainless (2003) 130 taxman.com 679 (SC). Pertinently, the ld. PCIT herself termed the income of Rs. 76,00,000/- of additional income at Para 9 - Pg 18 and if so, there is no justification yet to consider the same as open to the applicability to S. 69 & 69A of the Act. It is, evident that the AO has taken a plausible view on the issue in hand and thus, has committed no error at all. 5. No substitution of opinion permissible: The law is well settled that the ld. CIT acting u/s 263 cannot substitute his/ her own opinion for that of the AO. In this case the AO made pointed inquiries got the submission and applied his mind and in the light of the judicial guideline made available before him, he formed an opinion. Such an opinion cannot be substituted by the ld. CIT u/s 263 merely because it is getting more revenue to the department. kindly refer CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 71 Taxman 585 (Bombay) 6. The issue in hand in the context of Section 263 is directly covered by the decisions in the following cases: 6.1. In Surendra Kumar vs. PCIT (2023) 222 TTJ_UO (Chd) it was held....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6.2. In Smt. Rekha Shekhawat vs. PCIT (2022)219 TTJ (Jp) 761(DC 3-41) it was held that: "Revision-Erroneous and prejudicial order-Lack of proper enquiry vis-a-vis assessment of additional income as business income-During the course of survey under s. 133A assessee's husband admitted unrecorded income in the case of his wife i.e., assessee which was stated to be advances made for property in the course of her real estate business-Unrecorded trade advances and cash in hand were brought in the books of accounts and formed part of business assets and thereafter used in day-to-day business activities-Questions which were raised and the answers given during the survey show that the additional income declared on account of advances and the cash found emanated from and related to the real estate business only-Even the Principal CIT has admitted in the impugned order that this income pertains to recovery of cash amounts of advances made by the assessee to the other persons for purchase of land/plots- Undisputedly the assessee is engaged in the real estate business and there is no undisclosed or unknown source of income and the source of additional income so admitted is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n reply dated 27.09.2021 (PB 5-72) wherein, in Para 5 onward it has been elaborately submitted as to how these three items of additional incomes were part of business incomes and the AO has rightly considered them as part of business. The Ld. PCIT unfortunately completely ignored, what to talk of dealing with/ meeting with such contentions. Interestingly, she considers additional income from excess stock as business income whereas these 3 items being the debtors, cash and expenses which are, in the very name and nature, part of the business activities, and has been hold as not a case of business income. Even she did not record any categorical findings that these items of income could be assessed under the head of Income from other sources. Further, a decision of this Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Rekha Shekhawat vs. PCIT (supra) which was also a case of real-estate developer/ builder, cited in Para 6.2 and reproduced at Pg. 13 of her order, was not at all adverted. 8. Clause (a) of Explanation 2 of Section 263 - Wrongly invoked: The ld. PCIT has dealt with this issue at Pg 15 of the impugned order : 8.1 At the outset, this was never made a ground in the Show Cause N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as interpreted/the various High Courts where the High Courts have held that before reaching the conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The CIT himself has to undertake some enquiry to establish that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The ld. Counsel relied on the decision of M/s. Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd., v. PCIT in ITA No.3205/Del/2017 and Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. DCIT [2018] 97 taxmann.com 671 (Ahd. - Trib.). it is clear from the enquiries made by the Assessing Officer and submissions made by the assessee that the Assessing Officer has taken the plausible view which is valid in the eyes of law. The Assessing Officer was satisfied consequent to making enquiry and after examining the evidences produced by the assessee, he accepted the assessee's claim of loan similar view were also expressed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. [2013] 212 taxman 0184. We observe the Pr.CIT has drawn support from newly inserted Explanation 2 below section 263(1) of the Act introduced by Finance Act, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f revisional jurisdiction is sorely missing in the present case. 18. In the light of above facts and legal position, we are of the considered view that the AO had made detailed enquiries and after applying his mind and accepted the genuineness of loans received from GTPL and PAFPL, which is also plausible view. Therefore, we find that twin conditions were not satisfied for invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The case laws relied by the ld. CIT(D.R.) are distinguishable on facts and in law hence, by the ld. Counsel as well and we concur the same hence not applicable to present facts of the case. Therefore, in absence of the same, the ld. CIT ought to have not exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Therefore, we cancel the impugned order under section 263 of the Act, allowing all grounds of appeal of the Assessee." 8.2 In Mahaveer Prasad Jain vs. PCIT [2023] 153 taxmann.com 207 (Jaipur - Trib.) (DC 53-66) this Hon'ble bench has held as under: "9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record and also gone through the judicial decision relied upon. Both the parties have not disputed the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the issue this observation is very much in general and without specifying any faults in the assessment records, details submitted and verified by the ld. AO. In fact on perusal of the assessment order we have noted the following observation of the ld. AO." 8.3 Even the amendment [i.eExpl. 2(a)] does not confer blind powers: It is held that despite there being an amendment, enlarging the scope of the revisionary power of the ld. PCIT u/s 263 to some extent, it cannot justify the invoking of the Expl. 2(a) in the facts of the present case. Before referring to that Explanation, one has to understand what was the true meaning of the Explanation in the context of application of mind by a quasi-judicial authority. In the above case and in Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO (2013) 7 NYPTTJ 1493 (Mum.), it was held that newly inserted Explanation 2(a) to Sec. 263 does not authorize or give unfettered powers to Commissioner to revise each and every order, if in his (subjective) opinion, same has been passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made. 7. Thus, in the totality of facts and circumstances, it is not at all a case where the subjecte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vestment for Rs. 66,50,000 (45,50,000+21,00,000) and Rs. 9,50,000/- (Unexplained Money) should have been charged u/s 69A of the Act and hence, the tax should have been charged u/s 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961, which was not done by the AO/NFAC, while completing the assessment on 29.09.2021 and thus the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In the light of this observation the assessee was issued a show cause notice for the above observation made by the ld. PCIT vide notice dated 15.03.2024. Against that notice the assessee filed a detailed reply which was not accepted because the facts of the judgments on the cases relied upon by the assessee found to be different from the facts of the case of the assessee. In the light of that aspect of the matter ld. PCIT considered that the order of the assessment is liable to revision under clause (a) & (b) of the Explanation (2) of section 263 of the Act. The bench noted in response to the show cause notice issued by the ld. PCIT assessee-appellant filed point to point response to the queries raised by the Ld. PCIT. Upon considering the rival contentions and orders of the lower authority that in this case the limited ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....junction 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 ld. PCIT 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. We draw strength from the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). We also refer to the case of 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 cours....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as to why the tax be not computed as per the provisions of S. 115BBE of the Act, on the amount of additional income surrendered being Rs. 76,00,000/- in the course of survey conducted on, dated 16.01.2019. In this connection submissions of assessee are as under: ''1. Provisions of section 115BBE: The provisions of section 115BBE(1) reads as under: "(1) Where the total income of an assessee, - 1. includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139; or 2. determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- 1. the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and 2. the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (i).] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... undisclosed or explained or unexplained. If the income is disclosed or explained as mandated by the law, then same would be taxable in the ordinary manner. On the other hand, if the income is undisclosed or unexplained then the provisions of section 115BBE may be triggered depending upon the facts involved in each of the cases. The moment a satisfactory explanation is provided about nature and source then the source would stand explained and therefore, the income would be computed under the appropriate head of income as per the provisions of the Act. 4. On perusal of the Finance Minister's speech and Explanatory Memorandum (2), it is clear that the legislative intent behind introduction of section 115BBE was to curb the generation and use of unaccounted money and tax the same at the highest rate. 5. However, in this case the only regular source of income of the assessee in A.Y. 2019- 20 was the real estate business (and the connected ancillary activities/services thereto). The assessee was in receipt of the profit on the purchase and sale of properties and also commission/brokerage income and consultancy income relating to the real estate business. There is no ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is submitted that the profit arising from the real estate transaction of the purchase and sale, were advanced /given to various debtors. There apart, additional cash found also arose from same business activity. There apart, additional income of Rs. 21,00,000/- on account of construction activity, was in fact related to the construction of the apartment, villas, houses etc for the buyers during the relevant previous years. The said table shows the utilization/availability of the funds under different heads of the asset/expenditure etc and their nature also suggest that the additional income was related to/arose during the course of the real estate business only. The investment/ outgoing is clearly identifiable with the regular stock, cash, construction of real estate business activities only. There is no mention or whisper in these statements that such surrendered income was something beyond or in addition to the real estate business or that there was some other source of income giving rise to such additional income/ alleged undisclosed Income. In these circumstances, the only inescapable conclusion is that the surrendered income was nothing but a business income from the real esta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht to tax under head "business income" and not under the head income from other sources. 7.3 In case of Shri Lovish Singhal vs ITO (ITA No 142 to 146/Jodh/2018 for AY 2014- 15 dated 25 May 2018), the Jodhpur Tribunal applying the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the Bajargan Traders (supra), held that the lower authorities were not justified in taxing the surrender made on account of excess stock and excess cash found U/s 69 of the Act and accordingly held that there is no justification for taxing such income U/s 115BBE of the Act. In view of the facts & circumstances, judicial guidelines and the statutory provisions, the additional income declared during survey of Rs. 76,00,000/- cannot be subjected to S. 115BBE of the Act". In the ROI itself, as stated in the SCN u/s 263, the subjected additional income of Rs 76 Lakh was declared as income from business and profession. With regard to the source of such additional income, the aforesaid detailed submission on its own clarified the source/ nexus with the real estate business which the assessee was carrying on at that point of time. Thus, AO made full enquiries and applied his mind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. No substitution of opinion permissible: The law is well settled that the ld. CIT acting u/s 263 cannot substitute his/ her own opinion for that of the AO. In this case the AO made pointed inquiries got the submission and applied his mind and in the light of the judicial guideline made available before him, he formed an opinion. Such an opinion cannot be substituted by the ld. CIT u/s 263 merely because it is getting more revenue to the department. kindly refer CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 71 Taxman 585 (Bombay) 6. The issue in hand in the context of Section 263 is directly covered by the decisions in the following cases: 6.1. In Surendra Kumar vs. PCIT (2023) 222 TTJ_UO (Chd) it was held that: "Principal CIT has confused himself between 'undisclosed income' and the words 'unexplained income'. Provisions of ss. 68 to 69D are attracted in respect of the undisclosed income but the condition for assessing such income under the said provisions is that the assessee has either failed to disclose the nature and source of such income or the AO is not satisfied with the explanation offered by him. The perusal of the relevant part ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rade advances and cash in hand were brought in the books of accounts and formed part of business assets and thereafter used in day-to-day business activities-Questions which were raised and the answers given during the survey show that the additional income declared on account of advances and the cash found emanated from and related to the real estate business only-Even the Principal CIT has admitted in the impugned order that this income pertains to recovery of cash amounts of advances made by the assessee to the other persons for purchase of land/plots- Undisputedly the assessee is engaged in the real estate business and there is no undisclosed or unknown source of income and the source of additional income so admitted is clearly identifiable and is the regular business of real estate-Since the additional income is related to the real estate business it is certainly assessable as business income and cannot be considered as income falling under s. 68/69A- AO having applied his mind in accepting the said additional income as business income, there was no error in the assessment order-Thus, the Principal CIT was not justified in expecting the AO to apply s. 115BBE as also s. 271AAC ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cash and expenses which are, in the very name and nature, part of the business activities, and has been hold as not a case of business income. Even she did not record any categorical findings that these items of income could be assessed under the head of Income from other sources. Further, a decision of this Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Rekha Shekhawat vs. PCIT (supra) which was also a case of real-estate developer/ builder, cited in Para 6.2 and reproduced at Pg. 13 of her order, was not at all adverted. 8. Clause (a) of Explanation 2 of Section 263 - Wrongly invoked: The ld. PCIT has dealt with this issue at Pg 15 of the impugned order : 8.1 At the outset, this was never made a ground in the Show Cause Notice issued u/s 263 (PB 73-75) and therefore, the ld. PCIT could not have adopted such reasoning in the impugned order for the first time, which was not confronted to the assessee earlier. Reliance is placed on PCIT vs. Shreeji Prints (P.) Ltd. 2021 [130 taxmann.com 294 (SC)] (DC 47-52) wherein it is held "SLP dismissed against impugned order passed by High Court holding that where assessee-company had received unsecured loans from two different companies and As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal in the case of Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. DCIT [2018] 97 taxmann.com 671 (Ahd. - Trib.). it is clear from the enquiries made by the Assessing Officer and submissions made by the assessee that the Assessing Officer has taken the plausible view which is valid in the eyes of law. The Assessing Officer was satisfied consequent to making enquiry and after examining the evidences produced by the assessee, he accepted the assessee's claim of loan similar view were also expressed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. [2013] 212 taxman 0184. We observe the Pr.CIT has drawn support from newly inserted Explanation 2 below section 263(1) of the Act introduced by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1-6-2015 for his action. The Explanation 2 inter alia provides that the order passed without making inquiries or verification 'which should have been made' will be deemed to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It is on this basis, the assessment order passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act has been set aside with a direction to the AO to pass a fresh assessment order. It will be therefore imperativ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ld. CIT(D.R.) are distinguishable on facts and in law hence, by the ld. Counsel as well and we concur the same hence not applicable to present facts of the case. Therefore, in absence of the same, the ld. CIT ought to have not exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Therefore, we cancel the impugned order under section 263 of the Act, allowing all grounds of appeal of the Assessee." 8.2 In Mahaveer Prasad Jain vs. PCIT [2023] 153 taxmann.com 207 (Jaipur - Trib.) (DC 53-66) this Hon'ble bench has held as under: "9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record and also gone through the judicial decision relied upon. Both the parties have not disputed the fact mentioned in the assessment proceeding about the act of the assessee in depositing a sum of Rs. 51.60 lac in the bank account during the period of demonetization. Out of the cash so deposited a sum of Rs. 16.80 lac was consisting of high value notes of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000. The ld. PCIT in his order contended that the ld. AO has not properly addressed the issue while completing the assessment. Even the ld. DR did not place anything further to support the any sp....