DINESH KUMAR AGARWALLA,AMLAPARA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DHANBAD

order

: August 21st, 2023 ORDER

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

is against the invalid jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and the consequent order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT thereby setting aside the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') dated 10.04.2019.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had originally filed return of income on 30.09.2021 declaring total income at Rs. 3,72,350/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 27.11.2018 after recording the reasons that the assessee has taken loan of Rs. 50 lakh from three parties namely M/s. Burlington Barter Pvt. Ltd., Rs. 10 lakh from Sakuntala Devi and Rs. 10 lakh from Tarachandra Agarwal. The assessment was framed accordingly after examining the issue accepting the contentions of the assessee and the returned income was accepted.

4. Ld. Pr. CIT upon perusal of the assessment records observed that the assessee has taken Rs. 50 lakh from a Kolkata based company M/s. Burlington Barter Pvt. Ltd. in respect of which proper enquiry was done by Ld. AO in the assessment proceedings and accordingly identity and creditworthiness of the assessee and genuineness of the transaction remained unverified and therefore the order passed by Ld. AO is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Ld. Pr. CIT accordingly issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 03.12.2021 which was replied by the Page 2 of 5 I.T.A. No.: 12/RAN/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dinesh Kumar Agarwalla. assessee on 17.12.2021 submitting therein that the case of the assessee was reopened in order to verify three limbs raised out of which one is of Rs. 50 lakh taken from M/s. Burlington Barter Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee has filed all the information, explanation, details, confirmation etc. before Ld. AO and Ld. AO after examining those evidences filed by the assessee taken a plausible view and made no addition. However, the plea of the assessee did not find favour with Ld. Pr. CIT and he set aside the order passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act dated 10.04.2019 with the direction to examine the genuineness of the loan and frame the assessment afresh. Ld. A/R vehemently submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act is perverse and against the provisions of the Act. Ld. A/R submitted that Ld. Pr. CIT has wrongly exercised the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act without satisfying the conditions as envisaged in Section 263 of the Act. Ld. A/R submitted that the issue was examined by Ld. AO in the re-assessment proceedings as this was one of the reasons for re- opening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and the loan from M/s. Burlington Barter Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 50 lakh was subject matter of the reasons recorded u/s 148(2) of the Act. Ld. A/R further, submitted that Ld. AO has taken a possible view after due examination and verification of the documents submitted by the assessee. Ld. A/R submitted that even the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act issued to the loan creditors which was duly replied on 18.03.2019 and only thereafter, the contentions of the assessee was accepted. Ld. A/R submitted that in view of these facts, the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is invalid, wrong and against the provisions of the Act and may kindly be quashed.