TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 1451
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Assessing Officer (AO) dated 20.03.2015 under s. 143(3) of the Act concerning AY 2012-13 was sought to be set aside assessment in terms of supervisory directions. 2. As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has sought to challenge the jurisdiction assumed by the PCIT under s. 263 of the Act and as a corollary, sought to impugn the revisional order passed by the PCIT under s. 263 of the Act. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee has derived income from manufacturing and trading of Cassia Tora seeds, guwar and tora splits. The assessment order under s.143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13 was completed by the AO wherein after making some adjustments, the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.14,61,036/- under s.143(3) of the Act vide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....your submission in writing along with documentary evidences if any with regard to following points. 2.1 It is observed that you have paid total amount of Rs.171,22,879/- in cash as shown in the table below for purchase of Cassio Tora Seed, fire wood, rent payment, wage payment exceeding Rs. 20,000/- at a time in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act. It is seen that although in the ledger account the same have written as paid through cheque, they have been paid through self cheques. The bifurcation of the sum so paid is as under: Sl. No. Name of the Commodity Agency to whom payment made Amount 1 Cassia Tora Seed etc. Various agencies/dalal Rs. 14821817/- 2 Fire wood purchases Bhawana Timber and Gan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issue properly. 3. In view of the above lapses on the part of the AO such as lack of examination and verification on the part of the AO in respect of the above issue, I find that the assessment order passed by the AO as on 20.03.2015 to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Hence, it is proposed to revise the said order of assessment by virtue of power vested in me u/s 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 4. You are requested to submit your written explanation alongwith the documentary evidences if any as stated above. The hearing in this case is fixed on 24/03/2017 at 3.30 P.M in my above mentioned office address. Kindly note that in this regard no further adjournment shall be granted and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of such short delay. It was pointed out that the assessee has changed his counsel after the revisional order which resulted in delay in collecting information and preferring the appeal before the Tribunal. We do not see any serious prejudice caused to the Revenue for such delay. Keeping in mind, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector of land acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 (SC), we find merit in admitting the appeal of the assessee on merits after condoning the delay. While doing so, we also note that in the similar circumstances, the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in Perfect Scale Co. (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 60 SOT 255 (Mumbai), has noted that such delay is a bonafide error which requires to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Daga Royal Arts vs. ITO (2018) 53 CCH 86 (Jaipur Trib.) (2018) 196 TTJ 541 (Jp.) & CIT vs. Samwon Precision Mould Mfg. India P. Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 486 (Del.). 7.2 It is further claimed that the PCIT was himself under some obligations to carry out the minimal enquiry as held in: Magic Landcon LLP & Anr. Vs. Pr. CIT (2020) 204 TTJ 785 (Del.); Pr. CIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express P. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 8 (Delhi);& Mumbai ITAT in Narayan Tatu Rane vs. ITO in ITA No. 2690/Mum/2016. 7.3 We find merit in the plea of the assessee. In the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee in response to an enquiry from the bench presented cassia tora seeds for which expenses were incurred. The Cassia tora seeds, which is used for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion against the assessee under revisional jurisdiction is not sustainable in law. 7.5 The third issue concerns non-deduction of TDS on payment of interest on car loan amounting to Rs. 1,18,830/-. In this connection, it was pointed out on behalf of the assessee that interest was paid to Bank of India as interest on car loan and not to Magma finance as misunderstood by PCIT. The ledger copy of Bank of India Car loan account was relied upon. Thus, where interest has been actually paid to Bank, no obligation for deduction of TDS under s. 194A of the Act would arise. With reference to TDS on brokerage amounting to Rs. 8010/- and Rs. 7980/- without deducting TDS, it is the case of the assessee that the allegation made for non-deduction of TDS....