TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 30.03.2025 passed by the Ld.PCIT u/s.263 of the Act is bad in law and void ab inito. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT erred in considering the order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s by Addl. CIT, Central Range-2, Ahmedabad as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and setting aside the same before the Assessing Officer. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.PCIT erred in observing that the appellant has made payment of Rs. 4.2 crore in observing that the appellant ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in law and void ab initio for the following reasons: * The very foundation of the 153C proceedings was the loose material found at the premises of Shri Suresh Ranchhodbhai Thakkar. The same issue was examined during the course of assessment under section 153C, and after considering the assessee's detailed explanation, the AO accepted the returned income. * The Ld. PCIT has alleged that the order passed under section 153C is erroneous. This, according to the assessee, implies that the approval granted under section 153D was also defective, rendering the assessment order itself invalid and "non-est". A non-est order cannot be subject to revision under section 263. * Section 263 empowers revision only of valid asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Supreme Court held that loose sheets found during search do not constitute reliable evidence unless corroborated by independent material. 7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld. PCIT. The Ld. DR argued that the seized materials reflect payment of monies by the assessee to Shri Rajeshbhai for purpose of TDRs. The Ld. DR argued that the deal for purchase of TDR was made in the month of January 2018 as an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs was paid in the month of January, 2018 and an amount of Rs. 3.7 crores was made on 28.02.2018. He argued that Shri Suresh R. Thakkar has given a categorical statement that in "Malaybhai" mentioned in the seize material refers to "Malay Shah". The Ld. DR argued that the assessee is a partner w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....both the parties and perused the material available on record. 9.1 With regard to the objections of the assessee that the order has been passed after taking the approval of the ACIT u/s 153D of the Act and hence treating the assessment order as erroneous by the PCIT makes the assessment order itself void ab initio are not acceptable, as administrative approval u/s 153D and subsequent passing of orders u/s 143(3) of the Act is one comprehensive procedure envisaged by the Act in passing an assessment order in such search cases (153A / 153C), hence the powers of the PCIT to invoke provisions of Section 263 are unfettered. 9.2 With regard to the merits of the issue, we find that page No.152 of the seized material mentioned at page No. 3 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shwa Infraventures and the said firm has purchased TDR from Safal Constructions Pvt Ltd. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant part viz. para 6 page no. 31 of the order of the Ld. PCIT is reproduced as under:- '6. Facts of the case clearly show that the assessee is a partner with Shri Hemal Dhirenbhai Shah, son of Shri Dhirenbhai Ramanlal Shah in the firm M/s Parshwa Infraventures and the said firm has purchased the TDR from M/s Safal Construction Pvt. Ltd. It is true that the firm and individual are separate entities. However, firm on its own cannot carry out any transaction with any person. Any partner on behalf of the firm in his role as partner of the said firm does any transaction with another entity. It is a fact that....