TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntial justice, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. That order dated 18.3.2025 u/s 263 of the Act by the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Delhi-1 has been made without satisfying the statutory preconditions contained in the Act and is therefore without jurisdiction and thus, deserves to be quashed as such. 1.1 That the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to appreciate that once the learned Assessing Officer on examination of the facts on record and after making all possible enquiries had accepted claim of the appellant then such an order of assessment could not be regarded as erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely because the learned Commissioner of Income Tax had a different opinion and that too, without having established in any manner that, view adopted by the learned Assessing Officer was an impossible or unsustainable view. 1.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to appreciate that action u/s 263 of the Act is otherwise too inapplicable on the factual....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een creditors in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 31.12.2019, but in the assessment order passed on 30.3.2023 (passed in consequence to order u/s 263), the AO had omitted to make this addition. The AO is directed to make addition amounting to Rs. 4,83,07,312/- to the total income of the assessee, in accordance with the provisions of section 68 of the Act." is not based on correct appreciation of facts on record, legally misconceived, misplaced and untenable." 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. the return of income for AY 2017-18 was electronically filed by the assessee company on 02.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 42,88,560/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2019 determining the total income of Rs. 12,91,28,716/- wherein, the addition was made on account of unsecured loans u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 12,00,40,156/- being loan received from 18 parties. This assessment was sought to be reopened by the ld PCIT u/s 263 of the Act on the grounds that the ld AO while making the addition u/s 68 of the Act for 18 parties had made lesser addition in respect of 3 creditors i.e. M/s. Sahy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eedings ought to have reopen the additions made in respect of 15 creditors and in addition there to should have added the correct loan amount in respect of aforesaid 3 creditors. Since, the ld AO had not made any addition in respect or original 15 creditors, which was made in the original assessment order dated 31.12.2019, the order passed by the ld AO dated 30.03.2023 was treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue by the ld PCIT warranting revision u/s 263 of the Act. Further, the ld PCIT noted that even in respect of aforesaid 3 loan creditors added by the ld AO, the correct amount of addition should be Rs. 12,35,76,257/- instead of Rs. 9,21,79,000/-. Hence, show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued by the ld PCIT by 06.03.2025 which eventually culminated in the passing of revision order u/s 263 of the act on 18.03.2025. The present appeal before us is against the 2nd revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 18.03.2025. 8. Against the original assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2019, as stated earlier, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) on 17.01.2020 that appeal was disposed off by the ld CIT(A)/ N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso available on record. We find that the ld AO in the giving effect proceedings to Section 263 was in possession of additional evidences filed by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) as mentioned in para 4 supra to prove the 3 ingredients of Section 68 in respect of 15 loan creditors. These documents are very much available on record before the ld AO while passing the giving effect order. The ld AO in the giving effect proceedings had understood that he has to frame a fresh assessment order pursuant to the directions of the ld PCIT to frame the assessment afresh. Accordingly, the ld AO on verification of the additional evidences that are already on record, was convinced in respect of 15 loan parties and hence, chose not to make any addition u/s 68 of the Act. Hence, the ld AO, on appreciation of factual evidences available on record had taken a plausible view on the matter of examination of 15 loan creditors. Once a plausible view has been taken by the ld AO, the same cannot be subjected to revision u/s 263 of the Act. Reliance is placed rightly on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd reported in 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Max India Ltd reporte....