AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 648
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arising out of separate assessment orders, both dated 29.03.2022 of National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred as "Ld. AO") under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. 2. The appeals involve similar facts, grounds and issues, so, they have been heard together for the sake of convenience. 3. Brief facts of the case i.e. ITA No.2627/Del/2024, are that appellant/assessee filed original return of income on 28.09.2013 on a total Income of Rs. 3,88,910/- for assessment year 2013-14. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30.01.2016 at income of Rs. 5,19,550/-. On the basis of information, the assessee made high value cash withdrawals, and he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order dated 29.03.2022. 4. Similarly, in ITA No.2628/Del/2028, the Ld. AO vide order dated 29.03.2022 assessed the income as Rs. 6,32,612/- against returned income of Rs. 5,59,390/- for the assessment year 2014-15. 5. Ld. PCIT on perusal of assessment record observed that Ld. AO belatedly ignored frequent withdrawals from the bank. An amount of Rs. 4,47,41,609/- was used in cash payment to parties for purchases. Show-cause-notice dated 24.11.2023 was issued to assessee. Assessee submitted purchase ledger. Ld. PCIT vide order dated 27.03.2024 set aside the assessment orders of Ld. AO with the directions to make proper verification/examination with regard to applicability of section 40A(3) of the Act and to pass assessment order consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A No.2628/Del/2024 for assessment year 2014- 15 are as under: "1. That the notice issued, proceedings and order passed u/s 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is void-ab- initio, illegal, unjustifiable, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned Pr. CIT has erred in law as well as on facts in not considering the submissions of the appellant on the strength of which the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore, the provisions of Section 263 of the Act were not applicable to the case of the appellant. 3. Ld. AO has disposed the objection raised by the appellant on 23.02.2022 by a non speaking order dated 08.03.2022 also AO has not disposed all the objections ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. Learned AO at the time of passing reassessment order considered the following Facts:- 1. Assessment u/s 143(3) was already done, all books of accounts and vouchers are checked as per assessment order and addition was made earlier also. 2. Purchase sales and trading results are accepted by VAT Department 3. Investigation wing report is on suspicious basis that payment was made for more than 20,000. 4. Even in case of violation of 40A(3) only profit element can be added to the income, relied on various case laws provided during reassessment proceedings. 5. Immediately previous AY 2012-13 was also under scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) and trading results are near to Immediately previous scrutiny....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment order invalid in the light of Judgments of higher courts, so liable to be quashed. Reliance was placed on following judgments:- 1. Pradyot K Mishra vs ACIT where JURISDICTIONAL HC [2023 157 taxmann.com 253 pronounced on 20.09.2023 by DELHI HC 2. Smt. Kamlesh Goel V. I.T.O vide ITA No. 5730/DEL/2017, pronounced on 30.08.2018 by ITAT, DELHI 3. FGR Logistics Pvt Ltd vs ACIT vide ITA no.4560/Del/2019 pronounced on 01.01.2021 by ITAT DELHI. Therefore, the Order u/s 148 was null and void, the same could not be subject matter of revision under 263 of the act. 10.1 Ld. AO has disposed the objection raised by the appellant on 24.2.2022 by a non speaking order dated 09.03.2022 also AO has not disposed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... * PCIT vs TUPPERWARE INDIA PVT. Ltd. [2016] 65 taxmann.com 17 (DELHI) pronounced on 10.08.2015 by High Court of DELHI. 11. Learned Authorised Representative for the for the Revenue submitted that assessee had made payment in cash by withdrawals which were not properly inquired into by the Ld. AO. 12. From examination of record in the aforesaid rival submissions, it is crystal clear that Ld. AO had raised specific query for cash purchase/payment under Section 40A(3) of the Act in notices dated 28.01.2022 and 13.02.2022 ast pages nos. 79, 81 and 82 and 84 of the paper books. Appellant/assessee submitted detailed reply on 24.02.2022 along with relevant documents i.e. ITR, audited balance sheet and profit and loss accounts, VAT Orde....