TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yes of law and on facts, having been passed without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard on adverse opinion drawn from the reply submitted to notice under section 263 in violation of principle of natural justice. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr.CIT has erred both on facts and in law assuming jurisdiction under section 263 in the absence of twin conditions of the order passed by the A.O. being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, being satisfied. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Pr.CIT assuming jurisdiction under section 263 is bad in law having been initiated at the instance of audit objection only and merely on presumption assumptions. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr.CIT has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the fact that the issue raised by him in notice under Section 263 was before the A.O. and as such the jurisdiction on this issue under Section 263 cannot be assumed by him. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr.CIT has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny proceedings, the assessee had only produced purchase bills to the tune of Rs. 6,15,87,426/-, against a declared purchase of Rs. 10,08,35,106/- in the trading account. The assessee had not produced any purchase bills in respect of purchases allegedly made from sister concerns, namely, M/s Ambaji Diamonds, Jabalpur and M/s. Ambaji Hall Mark Gold, Jabalpur. The PCIT also noted the observation in the assessment order that no details of the stock position had been submitted by the assessee. The learned PCIT, thereafter, held that excess purchase of Rs. 3,92,47,680/- on this account for which bills were not produced should be disallowed and added back to the assessee's total income. However, the AO had added back only Rs. 2,12,82,278/-. As a result of this, there had been under assessment of income to the extent of Rs. 1,38,61,255/- u/s. 68 of the Act. From the same, learned PCIT concluded that the AO had failed to conduct proper enquiries on the issue and therefore, the order of the AO was erroneous, in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue since the enquiry which the AO was expected to have done had not been done by him. Learned PCIT, therefore, held that the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ark Gold, Jabalpur, it was submitted that those two cases had also been subjected to assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act where the sale bills of those assessees had been examined. Those became the purchase bills of the assessee. Copies of those assessment orders were attached to show that the purchase bills of the assessee and sales bills of those sisters concerns was duly verified. In the case of Ambaji Diamond Jewellers, the same AO had admitted that the assessee had produced 100% of sales bills. Accordingly, the contention that the assessee had not proved the purchases by way of purchase bills was incorrect. It was also submitted that all the purchases were subjected to VAT payments and the relevant VAT returns had been duly submitted containing the details of all the purchases. Thus, it could not be stated that AO not verified the purchases. Therefore, the proceeding u/s.263 of the Act was not warranted in the said matter. Furthermore, it was argued that the complete set of purchase bills had never been asked for and, therefore, the assessee could not be treated as being in default for failure to furnish them. It was further submitted that the AO had examined/considered purchase ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CA (hereinafter known as learned 'A.R.') appearing before us submitted that the learned PCIT had restored the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to make additions on account of purchases from unregistered dealer and sister concerns and on account of alleged wrong rate of profit. However, it was submitted that the entire foundation of the PCIT's belief was itself based upon the wrong presumption. He pointed out that the case of M/s Ambaji Ji Hallmark Gold and Shri Ajay Rawat had been taken up for assessment by the same AO where the sales of those parties had been totally examined and accepted. It was submitted that those sales were the purchases of the assessee. Therefore, if the sales were accepted in the hands of Ambaji Hallmark Gold and Shri Ajay Rawat, then they could not be unexplained in the hands of the assessee. It was further argued that the AO had added back a sum of Rs. 2,12,82,278/- as bogus sales disbelieving the cash sales made by the assessee in the month of October. On the other hand, the learned PCIT had alleged that there were bogus purchases of Rs. 3,92,47,680/- and, therefore, he had ordered that a further sum of Rs. 1,79,65,402/- be added back. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns. 6. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the argument of the rival parties. We observed that as far as sales made by Shri Ajay Rawat are concerned, the learned CIT(A) has quashed the addition made by the AO in the case of Shri Ajay Rawat on account of unexplained sales holding that the said sales amounting to Rs. 3,25,60,242/- had been completely explained. Therefore, once the said sales stood explained in the hands of the seller, they cannot be regarded as unexplained in the hands of the purchaser. Any direction to the AO to undo the findings of the learned CIT(A) cannot therefore, be valid and no revision proceedings may lie in respect of this amount settled and decided in first appeal. However, with regard to the sales made by M/s Ambaji Hallmark Gold, sufficient information has not been furnished before us to suggest that the sales of M/s Ambaji Hallmark Gold stood accepted by the AO. In the assessment proceedings of that concern, we note that the AO as made an addition of Rs. 73,56,343/- as bogus sales after considering the amount surrendered by that assessee against under the PMGKY. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the sales ha....