AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153(C) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue by invoking Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that, the assessing officer had completed the assessment after making complete enquiry and verification, therefore, the general observations made by Ld. PCIT for invoking revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act are incorrect and contrary to material on record. 2. The Ld. PCIT erred in setting aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153(C) dated 30/03/2023 for making fresh assessment without assigning any defects or inconsistency in the assessment order, thus invoking revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act merely for make roving and fishing query is beyond the jurisdiction and unjustified. 3. The Ld. PCIT failed to appreciate that assessment order was passed in the group cases which were centralised, after analysis of all the incriminating seized material (in the case of Alankit Group). statement recorded and after mandatory approval u/s 153D of the Act from Addl CIT and therefore, to hold such an order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is unjustifie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessing officer has not examined the facts and the seized material and left various facts with regard to taxable amount and various issues remained unaddressed. The ld. AO has not examined whether transaction represent the trading is revenue or capital in nature, thus, the assessing officer failed to decide the matter with applicable and binding the statutory provision and assessment order passed by assessing officer may be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as per the provision of section 263. 3. The assessee filed reply on 06.03.2025. The contents of reply of assessee is mentioned in para 3 of order by ld. PCIT. In the reply, the assessee stated that during assessment, the assessing officer raised necessary queries and meticulously examined all the material while passing the assessment order. The assessment order was passed with the approval of Additional Commissioner. The reply filed by assessee was not accepted by ld. PCIT. The ld. PCIT in para 14 of his order recorded that assessee's reply and explanation along with argument have no merit and are to be rejected. The assessment order is clearly erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of reven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of Sunil Gupta. In response to such show cause notice, the assessee filed his reply, copy of which is filed at page no. 51 to 150. The assessing officer again issued further show cause notice dated 27.02.2023. In the show cause notice, the assessing officer enclosed ledger accounts maintained in tally. In response to such show cause notice, the assessee furnished explanation that he had not entered into transaction with Alankit group. The assessing officer also issued another letter dated 18.03.2023 copy of which is filed at page no. 158 and 159. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that during assessment, the assessing officer examined entire record across all cases. The assessing officer carried out due verification and only thereafter completed assessment. The assessment was approved by Additional Commissioner of Range (Central Circle) as per section 153D. Such procedural compliance clearly shows that assessment order was passed after thorough scrutiny and by application of amount by assessing officer as well as by supervisory authority that is Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. Even otherwise, the assessing officer conducted extensive enquiry and based on verifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of PCIT. The ld. CIT-DR submits that assessing officer has not carried out the required verification and passed the assessment order without application of required enquiry. The assessing officer accepted the submission of assessee. There is no bar in revising the assessment which was passed after taking approval from additional commissioner under section 153D. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by ld. AR of the assessee. We find that case of assessee was reopened after issuing notice under section 153C. The assessing officer during the assessment issued show cause notice vide notice dated 08.12.2022. In the notice dated 08.12.2022, the assessing officer asked about the details of transaction with Alankit Ltd. along with all relevant documentary evidence. We find that in response to such show cause notice, the assessee filed his reply dated 20.12.2022 and furnished all required details including transaction with Alankit Ltd. and with regard to transaction with Alan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding as to how the assessment order is erroneous. We find that assessing officer passed the assessment order with prior approval of additional commissioner, thus ld. Additional commissioner appears to have examined the record and the view taken by assessing officer which was approved by him before giving approval for passing assessment order. 9. We find that Delhi High Court in DIT Vs Jyoti Foundation (supra) held that where revisionary authority opined that further inquiry was required, such inquiry should have been conducted by revisionary authority himself to record finding that assessment order passed by Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. It was also held that orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, but orders which are passed after inquiry/investigation on the question /issue are not per se cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, because the revisionary authority feels and opines that further inquiry/investigation was required or deeper or further scrutiny should be undertaken. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT Vs S.N. Tr....