| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3737 (Kol-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263
As decided in Kartick Bose v. Pr. CIT [ITA No. 1027/Kol/2018, dt. 22-1-2020], no quarrel assessee's sale purchase figures between the group concern have been accepted per se since AO proceeded to disallow an estimated 5% inflated amount only, therefore, PCIT has erred in law and on facts in holding the AO's regular assessment to this effect as an instance of outright bogus than inflated purchases.
|
Revision under section 263 - AO not properly examined and verified carriage and wages expenses - IT alleged that AO had not properly examined the facts -
PCIT had exercised his section 263 revision jurisdiction to hold that the regular assessment framed in assessee's case as an erroneous one causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue. The said assessment order revealed that AO held that assessee had been actually been put up for the purpose of inflating purchase and sales of M/s. N. He thus disallowed 5% of its carriage and wages expenses. PCIT in revision order under challenge include that AO had not properly examined and verified the corresponding facts which renders the same as erroneous causing prejudice interest to the Revenue. Held: As decided in Kartick Bose v. Pr. CIT [ITA No. 1027/Kol/2018, dt. 22-1-2020], no quarrel assessee's sale purchase figures between the group concern have been accepted per se since AO proceeded to disallow an estimated 5% inflated amount only. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in holding the AO's regular assessment to this effect as an instance of outright bogus than inflated purchases and had also erred in law and on facts in assuming his section 263 revision jurisdiction.
Relied:KP Varghese v. ITO & Anr. (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) : 1981 TaxPub(DT) 0972 (SC) Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 58 taxmann.com 44 (Guj) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 7917 (Guj-HC) CIT v. Lalit Bhasin (2007) 290 ITR 245 (Del) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 0066 (Del-HC) Kartick Bose v. Pr. CIT [ITA No. 1027/Kol/2018, dt. 22-1-2020] Balbir Singh v. Asstt. CIT 2015 TaxPub(DT) 5429 (Jp-Trib) Omega Estates v. ITO (2007) 106 ITD 427 (Chennai) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1675 (Chen-Trib)Followed:CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1548 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) : 2000 TaxPub(DT) 1227 (SC)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. : 2013-14
IN THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|