TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 936
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the notice u/s 142(1), the Ld. A.O. had specifically enquired about the issue of loans and advances to which Appellant replied vide letters dated 13.2.2015 and 16.2.2015 which were considered by the Ld. A.O. who ultimately passed the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) and excluded interest income from such loans and advances. Therefore, the Impugned Order is merely a change of opinion. 3. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. ACIT, in rectification proceedings u/s 154/155 had also inquired on the issue of loans and advances vide notice dated 17.10.2016, and the Appellant had duly given explanations vide its reply dated 3.11.2016, yet no further rectifications were made by making addition of any income in respect of loans and advances. Therefore, the Impugned Order is merely a change of opinion. 4. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT failed to appreciate that Appellant is statutorily mandated as per the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, to carry out developmental works through various Central/State Agencies. The loans and advances were thus made as such in the nature of trade advances for execution of various such works a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11157 UP Project Tube well corporation 2000000 2000000 2000000 EPI 4396631 4396631 4396631 UP Irrigation.deptt. 1895000 1895000 1895000 UP PWD 37434000 37434000 37434000 CPWD 5653500 5653500 5653500 UPSEB CL 8709253 8709253 8709253 UPRNN Ltd. 9157225 9157225 9157225 NCPL 3848555 3848555 3848555 RITES 43568160 43568160 43568160 Awas Vikas Parishad 26401015 26401015 26401015 Irrigation department Meerut 2600000 2600000 2600000 Jal Nigam Nalkup Wing 26451042 26451042 26451042 Other Agencies 7590799 7590799 7590799 NIDA Sikhsa Samiti 20028000 20028000 20028000 Total 312914337 312914337 312914337 Since these loans/advances were non-trade advances given from earlier years i.e. from previous years 2010-11, 11-12 & 12-13, hence interest of Rs. 3,75,49,720/- (12% of Rs. 31,29,14,337/-) was to be computed on accrual basis but the same was not done. 2. In view of the above facts and circumstances discussed above, it is clear that, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on dated 25.03.2016 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest. Clearly, the AO did not examine the details available on records and has su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he AO and instead has mechanically accepted the contentions and documents filed by the assessee. In this connection, Ld. PCIT relied on the following case laws :- - Panchaman Traders Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another reported in 283 ITR 50, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC). - Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Bhagwan Das reported in 272 ITR 367 . 3. Ld. PCIT concluded as under :- "From the aforesaid facts of the case and the above judicial pronouncements, it is evident that the order passed u/s 143(3) dated 25/03/2015 for the A.Y. 2013-14 passed by the Assessing officer in the present case is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, the same is cancelled and the matter is restored back to the file of the AO with the direction to make fresh verification on the points mentioned above. After giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the AO will pass a fresh order u/s. 143(3)." 4. Against the above order, assesse has preferred an appeal before us. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has summarized the sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... levied and that it should be deleted. Further, no question on surcharge was put to the Assessee in the show-cause notice (Pg.8-9 - Paperbook), however, a decision was passed in respect of the same in the impugned order. 7. The Impugned Order has wrongly held that the records have not been closely examined by the AO and instead has mechanically accepted the contentions and documents filed by the assesse/appellant (para 5 of impugned order @pg.3 - Paperbook). 8. Judgments relied upon: - Gupta Spinning Mills v. CIT | ITA No.3398/Del/2010 : Para 6 - CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. | [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) | High Court: Para 16 - CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma | ITA No.820/2009 | High Court of Delhi: Para 7 - CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. | {1993] 203 ITR Bom | Bombay High Court: Paras 11-12 - DCIT, Delhi v. Eastern India Powertech Ltd. | ITA/683/DeI/2012 | : Para 5" 5.1 Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that ld. PCIT has directed for further enquiry which is permitted by the amendment made in Section 263 of the Act 6. Upon careful consideration, we note that assessee is a statutory body as per the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. The advances given by the entities to....