2025 (9) TMI 844

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: "1. The Lrd. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Ahmedabad-1 (for short "Assessing Officer PCIT.") has erred in passing the order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act wherein there was no error in the order passed by the assessing authority u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2018-19 the assessing officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi added income of Rs. 51,87,600/-. 2. The Lrd. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Ahmedabad-1 has grievously erred in law in initiating penalty proceeding u/s.270A(9) of the Income Tax Act, First time in the revision proceedings. The action of the Lrd. PCIT is highl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... had assumed jurisdiction to revise the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee u/s.147 of the Act noting that the AO had erroneously disallowed bogus purchases made by the assessee u/s.37 (1) of the Act while he should have invoked section 69C, of the Act for the said purpose. The Ld. PCIT noted that reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee had been initiated on information received by the AO that the assessee had entered into transaction with one Sharukhan Jamiyatkhan Pathan which transaction was bogus and on which input tax credit had been availed. He noted that while the AO had made addition on account of bogus accommodation entry of Rs.51,87,600/-, however, while doing so he had disallowed purchases us.37(1) of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ia Private Limited vs. PCIT in ITA No.745/JPR/2024, dated 26.12.2024 Copies of orders were placed before us. 4. Ld. DR, however, heavily supported the order of the PCIT, though, he was unable to draw our attention to any contrary decision of either the ITAT or the higher authorities upholding the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction for initiation of penalty proceedings in assessment orders as valid. 5. We have heard the contentions of both the parties and gone through the order of the Ld. PCIT. Undoubtedly, the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee u/s.147 of the Act was found to be erroneous causing prejudice to the Revenue by the Ld. PCIT on account of the AO having not initiated penalty proceedings for mis-r....