TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1652
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order dated 21st April, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No.117/RJT/2022 for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 :- "(i) "Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in quashing the order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act of Ld. PCIT contrary to Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the Act?" (ii) "Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in quashing the order u/e 263 of the Income Tax Act of Ld. PCIT especially when the Assessment Order passed by the A.O. te unsustainable in law?" (iii)"Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in quashing the order u/s. 263 of I.T. Act of Ld. PCIT despite the A.O. having erred in not charging tax u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessment Records observed that though Assessing Officer has made addition on account of unexplained sundry creditors and bogus liabilities, failed to apply provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act to tax the same at 60% with applicable surcharge of 25% of such tax by not making the addition under Section 68 of the Act. The CIT (Appeals) therefore passed an order under Section 263 of the Act dated 1st March, 2022 on the ground that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue cancelling the same with a direction to make a fresh assessment. 3.4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal who vide impugned order dated 21st April, 2023 set aside the order passed by the PCIT under Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es/trade creditors. The Tribunal also referred to and relied upon the following decisions to hold that such addition cannot be made under Section 68 of the Act: (i) Manoj Aggarwal versus DCIT [2008] 113 ITD 377 (Delhi Special Bench). (ii) Ravindra Arunachala Nadar 129 taxmann.com 275 (Chennai-Trib.). (iii) CIT versus Pancham Dass Jain 156 Taxman 507 (Allahabad). (iv) PCIT versus Kulwinder Singh 99 taxmann.com 499 Punjab and Hariyana High Court. (v) Zazsons Exports Limited 88 taxmann.com 617 (Allahabad). 3.8. Considering the above decisions, the Tribunal held as under: "5.5 In the instant facts, in our considered view, the PCIT has not controverted the factual assertions made the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year: [Provided that where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless (a) the person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in ....