TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 582
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red to as the "Act") and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: "1) The learned CIT has erred in law and on facts in passing order u/s 263, setting aside the assessment order passed by the learned AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147r.w. s 1448 of the Income Tax Act with direction to make fresh assessment, which was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The conditions of section 263 having not been satisfied the learned CIT has no jurisdiction to invoke provisions of section 263. It be so held now and the order passed by CIT under section 263 be cancelled. 2) The learned CIT has further erred in law and facts in not accepting the detail su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., It be so held now. 4) The learned CIT has erred in law and facts on not accepting the settled legal position with regard to revision of assessment u/s 263 that "when the assessing officer adopts one of the course permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue or where two views are possible and AO has taken one view with which the commissioner does not agree it cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. It be so held now, 5) The learned CIT has erred in law and facts in not considering the submissions of assessee stating that the allegations of receiving accommodation entries are neither supported by any documentary ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l alias Sanjay Tiberewal. The order reveals the assessee to have been given opportunity of hearing during the course of revisionary proceedings and, thereafter, the Ld. PCIT held the assessment order passed to be erroneous causing prejudice to the Revenue for the aforestated reason. He noted the fact relating to the information on record, that pursuant to a search action u/s.132 of the Act carried out on 12.04.2019 in the case of Shri Sanjay Agarwal alias Sanjay Tibrewal, it was revealed that he was involved in providing accommodation entries thereby layering unaccounted funds of various persons through various bank accounts so that such money was recorded in the books of account without payment of taxes. The search action revealed that Shr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t proceedings, wherein assessee had denied having entered into any transactions with the aforestated entities, had corroborated its statement with evidences and AO accordingly had taken a plausible view accepting assesses explanation and making no addition on account of any accommodation entry availed by the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the assessee had demonstrated to the Ld. PCIT that the case of the assessee was reopened for the specific reason of the assessee having availed accommodation entry from Shri Sanjay Tiberewal of Rs. 15,32,921/- and during the re-assessment proceedings the assessee had explained with all evidences, including books of accounts & ledger accounts of all purchases made by him, that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... details of transportation charges and copies of L/R on sample basis and the ledger account of the suppliers. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that having so demonstrated to the AO that the assessee had not made any purchase from the identified parties, the AO was satisfied that the assessee had taken no accommodation entry during the year and accordingly, made no addition to the income of the assessee. ii. That even before the Ld. PCIT the assessee had demonstrated on merits that there was no error in the assessment order passed pointing out with evidences that it had not conducted any transaction with the entities allegedly managed and controlled by the accommodation entry provider. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....parties. He was also unable to controvert the fact that the above facts were duly demonstrated to the Ld. PCIT also, who had chosen to ignore the same while holding the assessment order being erroneous causing prejudice to the revenue. 7. In the light of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order passed by the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable, since, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has sufficiently demonstrated before us that there was no case at all for the assessment order being held erroneous on account of no addition being made of alleged accommodation entry taken by the assessee amounting to Rs. 15,32,921/- from parties noted above in our order at para 3. As noted above, the assessee had demonstrated with eviden....