TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 743
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. For that the order passed u/s 263 is unjustified on facts and in law, illegal and liable to be quashed. 2. For that Ld. PCIT, erred in not appreciating that this was not a case of no enquiry of lack of inquiry. As such the order passed is unjustified, arbitrary and liable to be quashed. 3. For that no defect has been found by Learned. PCIT on the specific reason of Real Estate Business with High Closing Stock, the specific reason for which the case was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Ld. PCIT also erred in pointing out how the view taken by Ld. AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. As such the order passed is unjustified and without any cogent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. It is further stated in the assessment order that the relevant papers and documents filed during the course of hearing were duly perused and considered. During the assessment year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in civil construction work under his proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s Ashoka Builders and Developers, Hirapur, Dhanbad. It is further mentioned in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer that on going through the audited books of account, it was seen that the assessee had shown closing stock as work in progress to the tune of Rs. 12,37,58,750.43 for the financial year under consideration and when asked to explain the reasons for high closing stocks, the learned Authorised Representative (ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quire into the expenses claimed by the assessee regarding major expenses claimed in the books to arrive at the correct assessment of the income of the assessee with regard to (i) real estate business with high closing stock, (ii) enquiries and verification with regard to payment made to land owner amounting to Rs. 31,06,375/- and (iii) enquiries and verification with regard to source of advance of Rs. 10,42,27,450/-. The ld. PCIT further directed the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment taking into account the findings of the ld. PCIT on the aforesaid points. 5. Aggrieved by the order of ld. PCIT, this appeal has been filed before us. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the appellant submitted as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11,78,852/- (vi) Plumbing material of Rs. 1,61,090/- (vii) Marble & Tiles of Rs. 17,73,356/- (b) Payment made to land owner of Rs. 31,06,375/- (c) Source & Advance of Rs. 10,42,27,450/- received in lieu of allotment of flats. "That the appellant appeared before the PCIT Dhanbad and filed the details of all the aforesaid expenses with supporting documents and his explanation stating, inter alia, that almost all expenses were paid mostly through banking channels and the TDS, wherever applicable, was also deducted and deposited. In respect of source of advance he has submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,42,27,450/- received in lieu of allotment of flats has been brought forward from the bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel for the appellant finally, submitted that since the necessary verification and enquiries have already been made in this case by the Assessing Officer, further scrutiny by the ld. PCIT amounts to revisit on the same issue which is not permissible under Section 263 of the Act as has been decided by the various courts including Hon'ble Apex Court. 6. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue, on the other hand, reiterated what has been mentioned in the impugned order that enquiries and verifications were not made by the Assessing Officer regarding high closing stock, payment to land owners of Rs. 31,06,375/- and source of advance of Rs. 3,42,27,450/-. In response to the query made by the Bench that why the ld. PCIT himself did not make the ....