2026 (5) TMI 1142

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 30.12.2022 passed by Income Tax Department under section 147/143(3) of the Act concerning Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019-20. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and originally filed his return of income for A.Y. 2019-20 u/s 139(1) on 31.08.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 96,18,850/-. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 09.03.2022 and assessment u/s 147/143(3) of I.T. Act was completed on 30.12.2022 at total income of Rs. 1,07,20,780/-. 3. In the course of search, incriminating seized materials were found regarding purchase of jewellery in cash from the premise of the assessee. The AO held the jewellery amounting to Rs 1,92,650/- were purchased in individual....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he law. 3. That the order passed by Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is further illegal and not tenable under the law because the reassessment order passed by Ld.AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act didn't contained DIN. 4. That the order passed u/s 263 of the Act is further illegal and not tenable under the law as reasons recorded and approval claimed to be obtained u/s 151 of the Act for initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was never communicated to assessee. 5. That the Ld. PCIT grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in holding the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue despite the fact that tax was paid by other e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....chased by M/s Ajayvision Education Private Limited out of cash generated from bogus billing, surrendered during the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. It is submitted that the jewellery were purchased for employees of Vision IAS and other related persons. 7. The ld AR further challenged the PCIT order u/s 263 stating that the expenses made for purchase of jewellery was not sustainable in the hands of the assessee as perquisite u/s 17(2) of the Act as the expense was made by the company M/s. Ajayvision Education Pvt. Ltd and that there is no employer-employee relationship between the assessee and M/s Ajayvision Education Pvt. Ltd.. Hence addition on account of perquisite under section 17(2) of the Act in the assessee's case is not as per la....