2025 (2) TMI 1351

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned PCIT has grievously erred in exercising jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. 2. That on facts, and in law, the learned PCIT has grievously erred in revising and re-visiting the same issue for which reasons were recorded for re-opening of assessment, and after due verification, no addition was made in the assessment order passed u/s.147 of the Act. 3. That the learned PCIT has grievously erred in law, and on facts, in setting aside the assessment order passed u/s.147 of the Act, and in directing the AO to make addition of Rs. 4,07,97,829/- on account of alleged accommodation entries obtained by appellant." 3. The assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14 on 27.07.2013 declaring total income o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Assessing Officer to make the addition which is beyond the scope of Section 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that there was several defects in opening reassessment proceedings of the assessee and after going through assessee's submission along with assessee's details, which clearly set out that the assessee did not have transactions with M/s. Sandeep Kumar & Brothers and Vegda Brothers which had final transactions with Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Limited. The Ld. AR further submitted that the reopening was in respect of information available on Portal and not that of independent enquiry. In fact, the assessee has given the response to the Assessing Officer thereby objecting the reasons for reopening. The Assessing Offi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7 to 10 of the Paper Book. The reasons for reopening have categorically mentioned in para 5 that the assessee had made transactions (fictitious loan) of Rs. 4,07,97,829/- with M/s. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Limited for A.Y. 2013-14 and there was clear evidences found during the course of search and seizure action. This aspect was not at all discussed by the Assessing Officer as well as there is no clarity in the notices whether these aspects were verified and enquired by the Assessing Officer. Thus, merely dropping reopening is not an opinion which is independent opinion. The contention of the ld. DR, therefore, is sustained. The Ld. AR submitted that every information was available on portal and the assessee has given his objecti....