TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1678
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t there is a bonafide reasons with the sufficient and reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal, therefore, the same is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 in terms of the reason recorded which are available at PB page 21 & 22. According to the same, assessee took accommodation entry of expenses in the shape of bogus purchases from proprietorship firms of Sh. Manoj Kumar, Dayanand Parasar and Sh. Pawan Mishra. Thereafter, the during the course of reassessment proceeding, it is found that assessee has not entered into any transactions with these three persons and accordingly, the income declared by the assessee was accepted in terms of the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 25.03.2022. Thereafter, the Ld. PCIT initiated the revisionary proceedings by issue of show cause notice u/s 263 dated 30.06.2023 wherein the Ld. PCIT observed that the assessee has purchased Scrap from M/s Shri Ganpati Enterprises, Faridabad which firm is related to Manoj Kumar, Dayanand Parasar and Sh. Pawan Mishra and, accordingly, purcha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by Ld. AR that since the AO has made proper and sufficient enquiries with respect to the reasons recorded, therefore, the reassessment order passed is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and was passed after making all the necessary enquiries and examining the veracity of the purchases claimed by the assessee. He therefore, prayed that the revision order passed u/s 263 deserves to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submits that information was available with the Assessing Officer from the Investigation Wing, Faridabad that assessee had taken accommodation entries of purchases of Rs. 6.00 lacs through Sh. Sh. Manoj Kumar, Dayanand Parasar and Sh. Pawan Mishra from a firm M/s Ganpati Enterprises. He further submits that the information was available with the AO and therefore, AO was duty bound to make verification of the said information from the assessee and since no enquiries was made with respect to the transactions made with Shri Ganpati Enterprises, the reassessment order passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He thus requested for the confirmati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om 294 (SC) has held as under:- "Section 69, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments (Unsecured loans) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessee-company had received unsecured loans from two different companies - Commissioner noting that said loans were shown as investment in assessee's name in balance sheet of respective companies exercised revisionary powers and passed an order without giving an opportunity to assessee of being heard, invoking Explanation 2 to section 263 - High court by impugned order held that since Assessing Officer has made inquires in details and accepted genuineness of loans receive by assessee, such view of Assessing Officer was a plausible view and same cannot to be considered erroneous or prejudicial to interest of revenue - Whether SLP against said impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, Yes" 14. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NYA International, while dismissing the SLP filed by the Revenue in Special Leave Petition (civil) Diary No.1845/2025 the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 17.02.2025 has observed as under:- "Delay condoned. This special leave petition is misco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 263 of the Act are fulfilled in its letter and spirit. 28. Notably, the ITAT, while making a categorical finding that the CIT had failed to point out any definite or specific error in the assessment order, has satisfactorily explained both the claims in question in Paragraph 8.2 of its order, which reads as under:- "8.2 In the Impugned Order, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Delhi held that the AO had not examined the aforesaid two issues properly and, therefore, set aside the issues for further inquiries to be conducted by the AO. As regards the first issue is concerned, we note that out of total provision of Rs. 1114.68 lacs, a sum of Rs. 7,60,76,105/- was suo moto added back in the computation of income and a further sum of Rs. 73,46,160- was disallowed by the AO in the original assessment order dated 30.3.2005. Therefore, out of Rs. 1114.68 lacs Rs. 834.22 lacs already stood disallowed in the original assessment order. The balance amount represented actual write off which was palpably clear from page 2 of the impugned order itself. No deduction on account of any such provision was, therefore, allowed to the assessee. Hence, there is no error or pr....