TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (4) TMI 845
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar, passed u/s 263 of the Act, dated 29/30/03/2010 is illegal, unjust and opposed to the facts of the case. (b) That the Ld. CIT-II, Amritsar has erred both in law and facts of the case in cancelling the order of ACIT Circle-IV, Amritsar dated 19.122007 passed by ACIT u/s 143(3) of the Act without giving due consideration to the facts brought on record. (c) That the Ld. CIT-II, Amritsar while passing order u/s 263 of the Act has completely ignored the factual position that the Ld. AO has thoroughly examined the books of accounts, vouchers, bills and stock tally of goods filed during the course of assessment proceedings by the assessee firm as well as various written & verbal submissions for genuineness of the trading account. (d) That....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee could not prove the genuineness of its trading account, the correct course of the AO was to prepare separate, correct quantitative tally for the period up to the date of survey and post survey. The Ld. CIT from the figures of monthly consumption of raw-material, production of finished goods and sales worked out the short stock of Rs. 56,29,470/- instead of Rs. 29,80,453/ as worked out by the AO. The Ld. CIT issued a notice to the assessee for the said action. The assessee submitted the reply vide letter dated 28.10.2009, which is reproduced in the order of the Ld. CIT. The assessee had contended that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings had proposed to enhance the assessment on the same issue which has not been done....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t afresh according to law after making proper inquiries. 4. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. P.N. Arora, invited our attention to the notice placed at PB-4, itself is bad in law for the reason that the Ld. CIT has in the very beginning of the table of the chart of quantitative tally prepared in the show cause notice which in fact is with reference to the misconceived facts. The Ld. CIT, has taken the tally as on 22.12.2004 and thereafter has taken the figure of the production, sales etc. starting from January, 2005. In this way, the Ld. CIT(A) has missed to take the tally of the figure from 23.12.2004 to 31.12.2004 with respect to the production, sales etc. Mr. Arora, the Ld. counsel for the assessee argued that the said tally is with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment order. Therefore, the AO has made extensive inquiry of the quantitative tally, production, sales etc. The Ld. CIT cannot extend inquiry to find out new facts. It was further argued that after examination by the AO of the quantitative tally, the AO himself has made the addition, which is part of the record. Therefore, the order of the AO cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Mr. P.N. Arora, the ld. counsel for the assessee, therefore, prayed to cancel the order of the Ld. CIT-II, Amritsar, passed under section 263 of the Act. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR, Sh. Tarsem Lal, argued and pointed out that at page 12 of the paper book, the ld. counsel for the assessee has missed to include 121....