TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment year 2014-15, being lead case and the decision thereof will apply mutatis mutandis to other assessment year i.e. 2015-16 as well. The grounds raised in assessment year 2014-15 read as under :- 1. That the Ld. PCIT has erred on facts and in law in passing the order u/s. 263 holding that the assessment made by the AO u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT is barred by the limitation u/s. 263(2) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in holding that the AO has failed to make enquiries on payment of pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Ld. PCIT that during the year under consideration, as declared at Sr. No. 27(ii) of ITR, the assessee 'company' had paid an amount of Rs. 7,36,321/- on account of professional / consultancy fees. Whereas perusal of Tax Audit Report (3CD) revealed that the assessee has paid an amount of Rs. 21,17,597/- on account of professional / consultancy fees. Therefore, there is a mismatch of Rs. 13,81,276/- (2117597- 736321) between the figures shown by the assessee in the ITR and Audit Report and the same is required to be taxed as per Section 69C of the Act. Thus, FAO has failed to bring to tax an amount of Rs. 13,81,276/- (2117597-736321). 3. The Ld. PCIT observed that as per the provisions of section 263, if an order is passed wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction to pass an order afresh, in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee." 4. Against the above order, assessee has preferred an appeal before us. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has summarized the submissions as under :- "1. The appellant, most respectfully, like to submit as that in the instant case original assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, by the Ld. ACIT Hisar on 17.08.2016. (Refer PB page No 1-2) 2. The impugned order u/s 263 passed by Ld. PCIT, Rohtak was originated from the re-assessment order passed by the AO u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as pointed out vide previous para, assessee has stated that the expense relating to the professional and technical fees and commission head is classified under another various head of expenses in ITR. The reply filed by the assessee has been considered but these issues require detailed inquiry and further verification, therefore, the reply filed by the assessee is not satisfactory and remained unacceptable. c) On the perusal of assessment records and documents downloaded from ITBA, it has been observed that the above discrepancies were not pointed out by the FAO and no inquiry was conducted by the AO in this matter. Thus, the AO has failed to make sufficient inquiry on these issues and also failed to examine the material o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yed that kindly quash the order of Ld. PCIT passed u/s 263 of the Act 5.1 Ld. DR could not controvert the aforesaid submissions of the Ld. AR, but however, he relied upon the order of the Ld. PCIT. 6. Upon careful consideration, we note that in this case original assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, by the ACIT Hisar on 17.08.2016 and the impugned order u/s 263 passed by Ld. PCIT, Rohtak was originated from the re-assessment order passed by the AO u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30.03.2022. However, the reassessment proceeding initiated by the revenue to "verify the transaction entered into by the assessee in Fictitious Losses in Equity/Derivative Trading." We find considerable cogency in the contention of the Ld. AR th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idered but these issues require detailed inquiry and further verification, therefore, the reply filed by the assessee is not satisfactory and remained unacceptable. c) On the perusal of assessment records and documents downloaded from ITBA, it has been observed that the above discrepancies were not pointed out by the FAO and no inquiry was conducted by the AO in this matter .. Thus, the AO has failed to make sufficient inquiry on these issues and also failed to examine the material on record and to apply the correct provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. In our view, as per settled law, the time limit for passing order for the issues, on which the Ld. PCIT set aside the order, would be counted from the assessment order passe....