TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1740
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng and crushing of stones. For the assessment year 2010-11 it had filed its return of income on 1/10/2010 declaring an income of Rs.1,52,73,067/-. Assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was complete by order dated 25/10/2012 at the returned income. 4. Subsequently, Ld. CIT examined the records of the case and noticed that the learned Assessing Officer did not appropriately appreciate the evidence on record and he failed to examine it or if examined, did not arrive at the correct logical conclusion on some issues like,- i. introduction of fresh capital to the tune of Rs. 1.241 crores Rs. 0.85 crores and Rs. 1.92 crores contributed by Sh. NK Gupta, Sh. KL Gupta and Sh. BK Gupta the partners respectively in cash; ii. verification of the source of cash deposits in Allahabad bank to the tune of Rs. 4.72 crores; iii. non-verification of the genuineness and veracity of the cash discount to the tune of Rs. 6.18 crores debited by the assessee in the P&L Account; and iv. disallowance of interest in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5. After giving an opportunity to the assessee on these aspects, Ld. CIT(A) held that,- i. the contribution of capital of Rs. 4 crores in cash in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer and the response of the assessee there to during the course of scrutiny, it cannot be said that there was no inquiry and therefore the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. His further submission is that proceedings under section 263 of the Act cannot be initiated for inadequate enquiry, but only for lack of enquiry which is a distinct from inadequate enquiry and for this proposition he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) and the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (del), Ld. CIT(A) vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (del), ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Limited 343 ITR 329 (Del), Ld. CIT(A) vs. Leisurewear Exports Ltd 341 ITR 166 (Del) etc. Basing on CIT vs. DLF Ltd 350 ITR 555 (Del), PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd 398 ITR 8 (Del) etc he submitted that where there is inadequate enquiry, but not lack of enquiry, the CIT must record finding that order is erroneous and must establish that error or mistake by the learned Assessing Officer is unsustainable. Further submissions made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue for further verification. Likewise, in respect of the cash discount and disallowance of interest under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act also, there is failure on the part of the learned Assessing Officer to conduct enquiries. 10. It is the further argument of the Ld. DR that having examined the record and finding certain discrepancies, Ld. CIT called upon the assessee to explain the same and it is only after hearing the assessee and considering the record, Ld. CIT formed the opinion that the assessment order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The facts and circumstances of the case do not require the Ld. CIT to gather any fresh material for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 11. Ld. DR placed reliance on a decision dated 29/11/2017, of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Daniel Merchants Private Limited vs. ITO in appeal No. 2396/2017 wherein the assessing officer did not make any proper enquiry while making the assessment and accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned and the Hon'ble Apex Court confirmed the direction issued by the Ld. CIT to the lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore us. 15. On the aspect of cash discount of Rs.6,18,12,406/-, record reveals that the assessee produced the details of the expenses payable and the payment made thereof, copy of Ledger account month wise of all major expenses of P&L Account etc and the assessment order reads that they were examined on test checked basis and it is only thereafter the learned Assessing Officer had taken a view in the assessment order. 16. A perusal of the all the material stated above clearly reveals that in the questionnaire attached to the notice under section 143(2) of the Act issued on 7/8/2012 the Assessing Officer sought details and production of the material covered by as many as 46 items and the assessee produced the books of accounts including the cashbook, ledgers, bank statement etc and furnished all the details sought by the learned Assessing Officer. On the face of the questionnaire issued by the learned Assessing Officer and the reply furnished by the assessee, it does not look like a matter where the learned Assessing Officer had taken a view without making any enquiry or an adequate enquiry. Learned Assessing Officer sought all the requisite details and the assessee furnished th....