TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1643
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. 2. ITA No. 3522/Del/2024 for A.Y. 2013-14 in the case of Raghav Bahl is taken as a lead case and our decision therein shall follow mutatis mutandis in all other appeals. ITA No. 1822/Del/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) - Raghav Bahl: 3. In A.Y. 2013-14 the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. That initiation of impugned revisionary proceeding u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the act') was bad in law as intended revision of original assessment completed in contravention of applicable statutes, would result in non-est assessment and thereby, impugned initiation of revisionary proceeding deserves to be quashed. 2. That initiation of impugned revisionary proceeding u/s 263 of the act was bad in law as being the original assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue as per Explanation 2 to section 263 of the act as necessary enquiry was duly conducted during original assessment proceeding, and no specific order /directions/instruction has been violated by the then assessing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....263 of the act relating to deduction claimed u/s 24(b) of the act. Therefore, the directions issued for fresh assessment order deserves to be restricted to issues observed during said revisionary proceeding itself. 8. All the aforesaid grounds of appeal are independent, in the alternative and without prejudice to one another. 9. The assessee craves to add, alter, delete, modify or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing." 4. The short point involved in these appeals is as to whether the order impugned issued under the signature of Ld. Pr. CIT(Central) KNP at Meerut dated 30.03.2024 in regard to all the assessment years under reference are sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. Brief facts leading to the case is this - The assessee initially filed his return of for A.Y. 2013-14 declaring total income at Rs. 1,04,53,330/-. A search u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted on 11.10.2018 on the premises of the assessee comprising M/s. PMC Group of cases wherein certain information/documents belonging to the assessee were also found & seized. Subsequently, the case was centralized and notice u/s. 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 31.12.2020, in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nciples of natural justice. It is most humbly submitted that as per second principle of natural justice i.c. audi alteram partem which means 'to hear the other side', no one should be condemned unheard. Besides that notice is the first limb of this principle and it must be precise, unambiguous and it should apprise the party determinatively the case the captioned assessee has to meet, time provided for the purpose of filing response should be adequate so as to enable captioned assessee to make their proper representation. Thereby, impugned notice shall be dropped and thereby no cognizance in such regard may please be drawn. 2. Without prejudice to aforesaid submission, it is most humbly submitted that assessment order dated 30.09.2021 passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the act is already under challenge before Hon'ble Delhi ITAT on following grounds: a. Said order, as uploaded on ITBA Portal was incomplete whereas, order issued in physical was issued without mentioning Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of said order. Thereby, both orders i.e. either uploaded on ITBA Portal or issued in physical doesn't hold sanctity in the eyes of law.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the then Jurisdictional Additional Commissioner Le. Ld. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Meerut, the then Jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax i.e. Ld. Incumbent Officer as well as Ld. Director General of Income Tax Investigation and as such, the said order must have been passed after thorough discussion. Thereby, such order could not be considered as prejudicial to the interest of revenue u/s 263 of the act. 4. Without prejudice to aforesaid submission, on perusal of provisions of section 263 of the act, it is clearly evident that any order of assessment shall be considered as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue, either of the following case exists: -Either the order was passed without making inquiries and verification which should have been made, or -the order was passed allowing any relief without enquiring in the claim, or the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by CBDT u/s 119, or -the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that the order of the ITO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (1) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (II) It is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If one of them is absent if the order of the ITO is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the revenue-recourse cannot be had to section 263(1). There can be no doubt that the 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 that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning, it is of wide Impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e had also submitted that no new property in India was acquired during the AY 2013- 14 relevant to previous year 2012-13. it was noticed from the assessment records that the assessee had made payment of Rs. 28,10,63,500/- in 2007,2008 and 2009 through Cheques and RTGS against the purchase of the said property at Bangalore but neither any such investment had been shown nor declared any capital borrowed for the purchase of the properties rented prior to the search operation. It is pertinent to mention here that the gross income of the assessee was above Rs. 50,00,000/-in the AY 2009-10, therefore, the assessee was required to declare his liabilities and assets. However, the assessee had file ITR-2 contrary to the provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961. It shows that there was no liability of the assessee. 7.3 Further, On perusal of assessment records revealed that the assessee claimed interest of Rs. 3,88,43,773/- on loan for Small & Medium Enterprise (SME). but shown ont account of rental lease (The lease i.e. Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solution Limited). It was noticed that the loan was not used for purchase of property (neither before nor during F.Y. 2012- 13 relevan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....property was purchased by the assessee during the Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee upon obtaining sanction of loan by the State Bank of India on 28.01.2008 purchased the property situated at L&T Cyber Park, Phase-II, Bengaluru - 3rd floor and 4th floor on 25.02.2009. It is found that there was no such requirement of furnishing details of assets and liabilities in the return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 to A.Y. 2010-11, rather such requirement of providing the details of assets and liabilities if the gross income exceeds Rs. Fifty lakhs was for the first time introduced in the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. It is further evident from the return of income filed by the assessee up to the A.Y. 2015-16 where no such format is found to have been placed in the ITR rather for A.Y. 2016-17 schedule AL has been introduced to be filled up by the assessee in case where total income exceeds Rs. 50 lakh, wherein the cost of immovable property being land, building and movable assets being cash in hand, jewellery, bullion etc. vehicles, yachts, boats and aircraft and further for liability in relation to assets at A as mentioned herein above has been directed to be filled in. The above fact ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aced before the said authorities, evidence whereof is also placed before us being part of the paper book. 11. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee made reference to these documents while explaining the issue raised by the Ld. PCIT in the order impugned to this effect that the assessee has not submitted the details of loan obtained. It is the case of the assessee that during the course of assessment and reassessment proceedings under Section 153A of the Act the entire set of documents were duly submitted, the acknowledgement whereof is also part of the paper book filed before us. 12. Pages 34 to 77 of the paper book deal with the fact supported by documents of letting the property on lease by the assessee to one M/s Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Ltd. The lease deed executed on 22.6.2011/ 19.09.2011 by and between the parties, namely the assessee and the said M/s Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Ltd. duly registered is appearing from pages 34 to 77 of the paper book. Page 78 of the paper book is the banking facility (ies) letter dated 15.07.2011 issued by the Standard Chartered Bank to the assessee of term loan of Rs. 31,98,00,000/- for th....