TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned the same and specifically covered the issue in the Notice U/s 142(1) dt. 21.12.2023, examined the seized documents and conducted multiple hearings which was duly supervised by the JCIT and further the assessment order was passed only after his approval. Thus in fact it is a case of thorough and deliberate inquiry against the conclusion of no inquiry reached by the PCIT. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in concluding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue without any new finding of facts from the seized materials- which was either missed or not considered by the A.O. resulting in inadequate or not inquiry. 3. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in treating the amount of referral fees of Rs. 77 lakhs disclosed during search as unexplained and to be covered U/s 69B and 69 in spite of the source of the same having been explained with corresponding supporting evidence for found at the time of search operations itself. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in concluding that the amount of referral fees of Rs. 74 lakhs disclosed by the appellant should have been covere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailed to assess the undisclosed investment of Rs.30 lakh u/s 69B read with section 115BBE of the Act despite the said provisions being attracted, which resulted in incorrect computation of tax and short levy of tax and interest. A sum of Rs.47 lakh out of the total cash of Rs.96,42,200/- found during the search was added to the total income of the assessee for AY 2022-23 on account of undisclosed cash found during the search, but once again the statutory provision under which the said addition of Rs.47 lakh was made was not mentioned in the assessment order while the provisions of section 69A of the Act were clearly attracted, and this amount was also not subjected to tax as per the provision of section 115BBE of the Act which prescribes a special rate of tax for income added/assessed u/ss 69, 69A, 69B of the Act, etc. The Ld. PCIT was further of the view that mere acceptance of the disclosure made by the assessee during the assessment proceedings does not dilute the mandatory statutory requirement of invoking the relevant deeming provisions of the Act, where the nature of the addition clearly falls within the ambit of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and this had resulted into....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vs. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) and held that a stereo-typed order which simply accepts what the assessee has stated and fails to make enquiries which are called for in the circumstances, is erroneous. He also relied upon the decision of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT, Delhi-I, (1975) 99 ITR 375 and held that the Ld. AO had failed to conduct necessary and reasonable inquiries and material facts on taxable income were ignored and the assessment order suffered from non-application of mind which had resulted into potential loss of revenue and held that the order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. He therefore, set aside the assessment order dated 15.03.2024 passed u/s 143(3) for AY 2022-23 and directed the Ld. AO to conduct a thorough and comprehensive inquiry into all the bank transactions, examine the nature, source and genuineness of the deposits, verify supporting documentary evidence, and pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee has filed an appeal before us. 5.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including,- (i) an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment; or (ii) an order modifying the order under section 92CA; or (iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section. Explanation 1.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,- (a) an order passed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988 by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall include- (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., "Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA. (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), an order in revision under this section may be passed at any time in the case of an order which has been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation.-In computing the period of limitation for the pur-poses of sub-section (2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and the period commencing on the date on which stay on any proceeding under this section was granted by an order or injunction of any court and ending on the date on which certified copy of the order vacating the stay was received by the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall be excluded." 8. A study of the literature on the issue was carried out. When an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an an erroneous order which goes against the interests of revenue collection. In the case of CIT v. Emery Stone Mfg. Co. [1995] 83 Taxman 643 (Raj.) the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that Allowing certain deductions without proving the claim or without proper verification or in ignorance of the provisions of law are the various instances on the basis of which the order could be considered prejudicial to the Revenue and could be set right in revisional jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [1995] 79 Taxman 184 (Guj.) has held that it is not necessary that every order which is found erroneous is also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. What is meant by words "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" has not been defined. However, giving ordinary meaning to the words used in the statute, they must mean that the orders under consideration are such as are not in accordance with law and in consequence whereof, the lawful revenue due to the State has not been realised or cannot be realised. If income in question had been taxed and legitimate revenue due in respect of that income had been realised, though as a ....