TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 1675
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2019, therefore, the order of the Pr. Commissioner is incorrect on facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Pr. Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the earlier order of the Commissioner-3, Hyderabad was set aside by the ITAT in ITA No. 87/Hyd/2020, dt: 29.06.2021, to consider the appeal afresh on merits ........therefore, the learned PCIT in current proceedings ought to have restricted his proceedings to the show cause letter issued on 06.12.2018 and also to the order u/s 263 dt. 28.02.2019. 5. The learned Pr. Commissioner erred in considering the issues which were not part of the original show cause notice and order u/s 263 and therefore, further erred in setting aside the order dt: 31.12.2019, whereas, against this order an appeal is pending before the First Appellate Authority for adjudication. 6. The learned Pr. Commissioner erred in not considering the grounds of appeal raised before the Hon'ble ITAT in respect of receipt of loans and also in respect of valuation of shares. 7. The learned Pr. Commissioner erred in not considering the submissions made during the course of 263 proceedings (consequent to ITAT order) wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Venkata RamaBrahmam 5 lacs, 4.2 The ld. PCIT further noticed that though assessee not even submitted their PANs either before the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner, however, Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment by merely reducing the loss by Rs. 2,16,571/-ignoring the issues referred in the reasons for selection of case for scrutiny. The ld. PCIT also noticed that during the course of proceedings before the AO consequent to earlier 263 order passed by the Commissioner against Sri P Sarath Chandra, the amount shown was Rs. 7 lacs. Further in the consequential order passed dated 31.12.2019, after giving effect to the earlier 263 order of the Commissioner dated 28.2.2019, the total amount added under loans received was mentioned as Rs. 4,10,47,326/-, which shows clear difference in the amounts involved on the loans taken. 4.3. Ld. PCIT in the second round further noticed that as the Assessing Officer failed to enquire into the above issues, while passing the assessment order dated 12.09.2016, therefore, the then ld. PCIT in earlier round had held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further examination. Further, the assessee has accepted loan/advance in cash in violation of provisions of section 269SS and has repaid loan/advance in violation of provisions of section 269T as per Form 3CD for which verification needs to be done with regard to the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan stated. 5. In the light of above facts of the case and also considering the fact the Assessing officer did not examine case properly the issues as stated above, the assessment order passed U/s 143(3) dated 12.09.2016 for the A.Y.2014-15 is considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, the said order is set aside. The Assessing Officer is directed to redo the assessment in accordance with the law, after taking necessary action as discussed above and after allowing an opportunity of being heard." 6.2 Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld. PCIT, assessee filed an appeal i.e., ITA No. 87/Hyd/2020 wherein the Tribunal had set aside the order passed by the ld. PCIT and the Tribunal directed the assessee to appear again before the ld. PCIT and directed the ld. PCIT to decide the issue afresh. The relevant portion of the order of Tribunal r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entioned in the 3CD report, which is not correct as mentioned at para 2 above." 6.4. ld. AR further submitted that assessee was able to prove to the satisfaction of the ld. PCIT and the issues raised and therefore, the action on the part of ld. PCIT is incorrect. He had also submitted that as per form 3CD, the assessee has not accepted the loan in cash or paid loan amount in cash. He has drawn our attention to Sl. Nos. 31(a) and 31(b) of Form 3CD placed at Pages 46 and 48 of the paper book, respectively, which are to the following effect : "31(a) - Particulars of each loan or deposit in an amount exceeding the limit specified in section 269SS taken or accepted during the previous year - No 31(b) - Particulars of each repayment of loan or deposit in an amount exceeding the limit specified in section 269T made during the previous year - Nil." 6.5. The ld. AR had submitted that all the issues namely with respect to valuation of shares, loans and the alleged violation of provisions of section 269SS were examined by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the details provided by the assessee. Hence, no interference is called upon by the ld. PCIT and therefore, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant was placed on record at page 56 of the paper book, certifying that Fair Value of Equity Shares of assessee company were calculated under discounted free cash flow method as per the notification and guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India was at Rs. 215/- per equity share. However, no basis for arriving at the above said figures were available or provided to the Assessing Officer. Though, the assessee has right to choose the method of valuation either by discounted free cash flow method or NAV method, however, the Assessing Officer is well within its rights and have bounden duty to examine the application of method adopted by the assessee i.e., whether correct parameters were applied or not for proving at the transaction value. Ld. PCIT had pointed that there was exorbitant increase in the turnover of the assessee from year to year. However, no reasoning was given by the Assessing Officer or ld. PCIT before passing of the order. Similarly, the Assessing Officer has not examined the details of the share application money and sources thereof. In fact, the ld. DR during the course of arguments has drawn our attention to the fact ....