TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 654
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. This appeal is filed delayed by 62 days and an application dated 26.11.2025 for condonation of delay was filed wherein it is stated by the AR that due to negligence of Accountant who did not inform the assessee about the passing of the impugned order, therefore, the appeal could not be filed within time and delay was of only 62 days. It is thus, requested that delay be condoned and appeal be admitted for adjudication. 3. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR for the Revenue objected to the condonation of delay. 4. Heard both the parties. Considering the facts stated by AR of the assessee in the petition filed for condonation of delay, we find that delay is unintentional and inadvertent due....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the reassessment order should not be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the AO has failed to invoke the provisions of section 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on the disallowance made towards bogus purchases. After considering the reply filed by the assessee, the ld. PCIT vide impugned order dt. 11.03.2025 held that the reassessment order was passed by the AO in a very casual manner without due diligence and without applying correct provisions of Act and, therefore, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld. PCIT thereafter in terms of the powers conferred as per Explanation 2 of section 263 has set aside the reassessment order and direct the AO to pass the order afresh after conduct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the facts and circumstances of the case as the Ld. AO has made detailed enquiry and verification during the reassessment proceedings regarding the issue involved. 4. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the Act, the Ld. PCIT has erred in law in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act as the challenge to the reassessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 24.03.2023 is already under challenge before the Ld. CIT(A), as such no revision proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act could have been initiated against the Assessee. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 which is bad in law inter alia for this rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he facts of the present case and, therefore, the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Regarding the directions of the ld. PCIT for making fresh enquiries and investigation, ld. AR submits that from the perusal of the revisionary order, it could be seen that nowhere int eh order it is stated by ld. PCIT that what enquires were left to be undertaken by the assessee who held the purchases as bogus which fact is not doubted by the ld. PCIT. 10. Ld. AR also placed reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Rajkot Bench in the case of Shashikant Bhavajjibhai Rajpara vs. PCIT in ITA No. 59/RJT/2022 vide order dated 22.03.2023 and also in the case of the Coordinate Bench of the ITA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... purchases held as bogus should be disallowed u/s. 69C of the Act. The provisions of section 69C are as under: "69C Where in any financial year an assessee has incurred any expenditure and he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof, or the explanation, if any, offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Offertory the amount covered by such expenditure or part thereof at the case may be may se deemed to be the income of the assessee by such for such financial year. Provided that notwithstanding anything standing contained in any other provision of this Act such unexplained expenditure which deemed to be he income of the assessee shut not be allowed as a deduction under any head ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses. Therefore, he invoked the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act and disallowed the purchases made by the assessee. This being so, the provisions of section 69C of the Act are not applicable on the facts of the instant case. 16. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Rajkot in the case of Shashikant Bhavajjibhai Rajpara vs. PCIT (supra) has made following observations: "7. We have considered the above contentions made by the ld counsel for the assessee, we find merit in the same. As per the ld Pr. CIT the disallowance of Rs. 29 30,229/- made by the AO came within the purview of section 69C of the Act. We have gone through the provision of section 69C of the Act and also disallowance made by the AO in his assessment order which is r....