HANEIL SOYA-TECH PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, NAGPUR

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

These appeals are preferred by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the Revisionary Authority’ for short) in appeals filed before him against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer

P a g e | 2 ITA Nos. 408 to 411/Nag/2026 Haneil Soya Tech Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 to 2022-23) (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short) passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Further details of the orders of the lower authorities are as under: -

ITA No. Ld. FAA who Appeal No. & Date AO who passed the & AY passed the of order of the Ld. assessment order & appellate order FAA Date of order 408/Nag/2 PCIT (Central) DIN & Order No : ACIT/DCIT, CC- 6 Nagpur ITBA/REV/F/REV5 2(2) 2019-20 /2025- Nagpur 26/1087852775(1) 28.02.2024 Dated: 24.03.2026 409/Nag/2 PCIT (Central) DIN & Order No : ACIT/DCIT, CC- 6 Nagpur ITBA/REV/F/REV5 2(2) 2020-21 /2025- Nagpur 26/1087852460(1) 01.03.2024 Dated: 24.03.2026 410/Nag/2 PCIT (Central) DIN & Order No : ACIT/DCIT, CC- 6 Nagpur ITBA/REV/F/REV5 2(2) 2021-22 /2025- Nagpur 26/1087852338(1) 28.02.2024 Dated: 24.03.2026 411/Nag/2 PCIT (Central) DIN & Order No : ACIT/DCIT, CC- 6 Nagpur ITBA/REV/F/REV5 2(2) 2022-23 /2025- Nagpur 26/1087852156(1) 28.02.2024 Dated: 24.03.2026

P a g e | 3 ITA Nos. 408 to 411/Nag/2026 Haneil Soya Tech Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 to 2022-23) findings in AY 2019-20, shall apply Mutatis mutandis to other AYs also, and facts and PB of AY 2019-20 shall be taken for relevant references.

2.1 On hearing both sides we find that assessee has challenged the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act primarily alleging that all the relevant inquiries were made by the AO at the time of inquiry and assesse had filed detailed response to the queries raised while the ld. Revisionary Authority has examined the issues afresh and without conducting any further inquiry or pointing out any substantive reason has held the assessment order to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Ld. Counsel has also submitted that in fact the assessment were completed u/s 147 of the Act and were based on approval of the assessment orders from Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Range-2 and without finding the approval to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue the assessment order could not have been held so independently and reliance in this regard has been placed on certain judicial decisions.

P a g e | 4 ITA Nos. 408 to 411/Nag/2026 Haneil Soya Tech Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 to 2022-23) Supreme Court Decision in T.N Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd versus CIT [2003] 129 Taxman 69 (SC). In support of contentions supporting the findings of ld. PCIT, ld. DR has filed written submissions and a paper book citing numerous judicial decisions with request to reproduce the same in order for institutional memory and to help perusal of matter further for filing appeal, if needed. However, we have considered the submissions filed on 07.08.2026 and 21.08.2026 but their reproduction at length is not necessary as they are primarily reproductions of facts and reasoning of ld. PCIT, which we were well appraised by ld. DR at time of hearing itself. Infact, the repeated request of ld. DR to allow filing the written submissions, post hearing, has only delayed the pronouncement of the orders. However, we appreciate this effort to bring on record all possible pleas of department.

P a g e | 5 ITA Nos. 408 to 411/Nag/2026 Haneil Soya Tech Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 to 2022-23) and based upon the same ld. AO had made an addition by way of disallowance on account of two vehicles which were being used for personal purpose and not business purposes.

5.1 In regard to AY: 2020-21 assessee has placed on record copy of notice u/s 148A(b) of the I.T. Act 1961 dated 07.12.2022 at page no. 1-3. Copy of order u/s 148A(d) of the I.T. Act 1961 date 17.02.2023 at page No. 3-4. Copy of Prior Administrative Approval for passing order u/s 148A(d) of I.T. Act 1961 dated 10.02.2023 at page No.5-6. Copy of notice issued u/s 143(2) of I. T. Act 1961 dated 02.06.2023 at page No. 7-9. Copy of reply filed on 28.06.2023 by assessee in response to notice issued u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act.1961 at page No. 10-12. Copy of notice issued u/s 142(1) of I. T. Act. 1961 dated 30.12.2023 at page No. 13-16. Copy of reply filed by assessee on 12.02.2024 in response to notice issued u/s 142(1) of I. T. Act, 1961 at page No. 17-19.

5.2 In regard to AY: 2021-22 there is on record copy of notice u/s 148A(b) of the I.T. Act 1961 at page no. 1-2. Copy of assessment order u/s 148A(d) of the

P a g e | 6 ITA Nos. 408 to 411/Nag/2026 Haneil Soya Tech Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 to 2022-23) I.T. Act 1961 at page No. 3-4. Copy of Prior Administrative Approval for passing order u/s 148A(d) of I.T. Act 1961 at page No.5-6. Copy of notice issued u/s 143(2) of I. T. Act 1961 at page No. 7-9. Copy of reply filed by the assesseein response to notice issued u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act.1961 at page No. 10-12. Copy of notice issued u/s 142(1) of I. T. Act. 1961 at page No. 13-16. Copy of reply filed by assessee in response to notice issued u/s 142(1) of I. T. Act, 1961 at page No. 15-17.

5.3 Then, in regard to AY: 2022-23 assessee has filed copy of notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act 1961 at page no. 1-2. Copy of reply filed by the assessee in response to notice issued u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act 1961 at page No. 3-5.

“4. In this case, survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted after 01.04.2021 hence, the provisions of explanation 2 of section 148 of the Act are squarely applicable. Huge expenses have been claimed by the assessee which requires supporting documents.”

P a g e | 7 ITA Nos. 408 to 411/Nag/2026 Haneil Soya Tech Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 to 2022-23)

7.1 However, we find that ld. PCIT has found lack of inquiry with regard to issue like foreign exchange transaction, purchases from M/s Veritas Exports, personal use of company vehicles and discrepancy in trade receivables/payables.

7.2 In AY: 2020-21 the said order under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act revolves around the credit of Rs.4,75,000/- received in the bank account from Medows Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (page 3-4 of the paper book for AY: 2020-21). However, ld. PCIT has examined the issue of vehicle use for personal purpose and examined the same thoroughly to hold that there was lack of inquiry.

7.3 Similarly, in AY: 2021-22 copy of order under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act available at page No. 3-4 of the paper book for AY: 2021-22 shows that only with regard to credit of Rs.41,00,000/- received in the bank account of from Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. the issue of creditworthiness was to be examined. However, again ld. PCIT questioned the impugned assessment order for lack of inquiries on account of transaction in foreign exchange.

7.4 In regard to AY: 2022-23 we find that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and there was no notice u/s 147/148 of the Act. The issue was still completed as order passed u/s 143 r.w.s 147 of the Act after prior approval of Additional CIT (Central) Range-2, Nagpur. The assessment order dated

P a g e | 8 ITA Nos. 408 to 411/Nag/2026 Haneil Soya Tech Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 to 2022-23) 28.02.2024 shows that notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee after getting prior approval of PCIT (Central) Nagpur, as per CBDT Instructions. At page No. 1-2 copy of notice u/s 142(2) when considered we find that as many as on 10 different aspects necessary information were called from the assessee. The ld. PCIT still examined the issue of personal use of company vehicles expenses claimed and issue of foreign exchange transaction to hold that these aspects were not enquired into by ld. AO. However, the matter of fact was that the mandatory notices calling for queries seems to have been raised only after approval of senior authorities.

7.5 In the light of aforesaid we find the ld. PCIT seems to have, gone beyond the jurisdiction of ld. AO to allege lack of enquiry for issues which actually needed no separate enquiry. While for issues needed to be examined all vita information was made available.

P a g e | 9 ITA Nos. 408 to 411/Nag/2026 Haneil Soya Tech Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 to 2022-23) account so as to say that the conclusion drawn by ld. AO in accepting the response of the assesse to the query raised was in any way not in accordance with law.

P a g e | 10 ITA Nos. 408 to 411/Nag/2026 Haneil Soya Tech Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 to 2022-23) nowhere it reflects that the inference drawn by ld. AO was not in accordance with law. The mere difference in the manner of appreciating the evidences of assesse by the AO and Ld. PCIT cannot lead to a conclusion that the AO’s conclusion or inference were not in accordance with law.In the absence of there being anything further on record to show that the inference drawn and conclusion reached by AO was not a reasonable and rational conclusion so as to be said to be not in accordance with law, the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

P a g e | 11 ITA Nos. 408 to 411/Nag/2026 Haneil Soya Tech Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 to 2022-23) why assesse’s response to notice issued u/s 142(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 at page No. 18-22, should have been rejected altogether.

“16. Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the CIT has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if required and necessary, before the order under section 263 is passed. In such cases, the order of the Assessing Officer will be erroneous because the order passed is not sustainable in law and the said finding must be recorded. CIT cannot remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide whether the findings recorded are erroneous. In cases where there is inadequate enquiry but not lack of enquiry, again the CIT must give and record a finding that the order/inquiry made is erroneous. This can happen if an enquiry and

P a g e | 12 ITA Nos. 408 to 411/Nag/2026 Haneil Soya Tech Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 to 2022-23) verification is conducted by the CIT and he is able to establish and show the error or mistake made by the Assessing Officer, making the order unsustainable in Law. In some cases possibly though rarely, the CIT can also show and establish that the facts on record or inferences drawn from facts on record per se justified and mandated further enquiry or investigation but the Assessing Officer had erroneously not undertaken the same. However, the said finding must be clear, unambiguous and not debatable. The matter cannot be remitted for a fresh decision to the Assessing Officer to conduct further enquiries without a finding that the order is erroneous. Finding that the order is erroneous is a condition or requirement which must be satisfied for exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the matter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply and mean the CIT has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question.” 13. Now, the Ld. PCIT, while exercising powers under section 263, has sought to set aside the assessment for ‘necessary enquiry’ of the same material that was already on record, merely on the premise that such enquiry on creditworthiness was required. Thus actually directing ld. AO to revisit the view taken earlier which is not permissible under the law. In this regard, we are of considered view that it is a settled position of law that the Ld. PCIT cannot invoke revisionary provision just because he has different opinion in respect of manner of enquiry and the conclusion drawn from the same sets of facts placed before the Ld. AO. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83) where Hon’ble Apex

P a g e | 13 ITA Nos. 408 to 411/Nag/2026 Haneil Soya Tech Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 to 2022-23) Court has held that where the AO has adopted one of the possible courses permissible in law, resulting in a loss of revenue, such order cannot be treated as "erroneous" merely because the Commissioner does not agree with that view, unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law.In the case in hand as we appreciate the impugned order and findings of ld. PCIT, we find no word of discussion to show how the evidences filed by the assessee were not relevant or inadmissible in law to arrive at conclusion that transaction was genuine.

"12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that arises for our consideration is about the exercise of power by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. As noted above, the submission of learned counsel for the revenue was that while passing the

P a g e | 14 ITA Nos. 408 to 411/Nag/2026 Haneil Soya Tech Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 to 2022-23) assessment order, the Assessing Officer did not consider this aspect specifically whether the expenditure in question was revenue or capital expenditure. This argument predicates on the assessment order which apparently does not give any reasons while allowing the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, that by itself would not be indicative of the fact that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind on the issue. There are judgments galore laying down the principle that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is not required to give detailed reason in respect of each and every item of deduction, etc. Therefore, one has to see from the record as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry". If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter.” 17. Similarly Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Vikas Polymers[2012] 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) held that:

"18.......This is for the reason that if a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the Assessing Officer, which was answered to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, but neither the query nor the answer were reflected in the assessment order, this would not by itself lead to the conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer called for interference and revision."

P a g e | 15 ITA Nos. 408 to 411/Nag/2026 Haneil Soya Tech Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 to 2022-23) 18. It appears that the fact which may have had actual bearing on mind of ld. PCIT was that the case of assesse were part of search in a group and assesse had received money from group companies in the form of circulation of funds within company while these companies were actually alleged to be shell companies by investigation wing and so also there were issues about certain expenditures being not on actual basis or for benefit of directors and their family members. However, each case had to be examined individually on its own facts by the ld. AO, and taking a gross view, the submissions, explanations and evidences of assesse could not have been discarded on suspicion or scale of human probability, as done by ld. PCIT, in the impugned order. What is alleged to be lack of enquiry is on foundation that as it was case reopening on material found in search of group, the submissions, explanations and evidences of assesse should not have been accepted at all, as the department had found the group to be indulging in some financial irregularities in regard to expenditures or sourcing its funds. However, the burden on AO, was to rebut the submissions, explanations and evidences of assesse, by some evidences. Had AO simply on basis of suspicion and surmises rejected submissions, explanations and evidences of assesse, to make additions or disallowances, as indicated by ld. PCIT, the same would not have sustain the rigours of law, where submissions, explanations and evidences of assesse, cannot be rejected merely on bald and uncorroborated allegations of facts. We are of the

P a g e | 16 ITA Nos. 408 to 411/Nag/2026 Haneil Soya Tech Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 to 2022-23) considered view when assessing officer had opportunity to examine the issue in group companies together then AO’s comprehensive view of the issue cannot be alleged to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue as AO having examined the transactions of the group entities may have considered it to be genuine inter group transactions for the benefit of the group as a whole. The lack of income of any entity of the group in itself cannot be a basis to doubt its creditworthiness and especially at the stage of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act without otherwise establishing that the opinion formed by the AO was not sustainable in law.Thus conclusion of ld. PCIT, to hold the assessment order to be erroneous so far prejudicial for the revenue cannot be sustained by us. On the contrary, the corresponding grounds raised by the assesse deserves to be sustained.

P a g e | 17 ITA Nos. 408 to 411/Nag/2026 Haneil Soya Tech Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 to 2022-23) Bench in Devendra Kumar Gupta versus PCIT, Central, Gurugaon vide ITA No. 1890 to 1893/Del/2014 order dated 30.08.2024 where in Pune Bench decision in the case of RamamoorthyVasudevan versus PCIT vide ITA No. 967 and 968/Pune/2016 was relied. Similar view is expressed in Shalimar Corp. Ltd. Versus PCIT, Central-3, New Delhi ITA 1546 and 1548/Del/2025 order dated 27.02.2026 (Delhi Tribunal), Manohar and Filament Pvt. Ltd versus PCIT. Central-3, Delhi ITA 2645/Del/2025 order dated 31.12.2025. Similar view is expressed by Mumbai Tribunal in Shashi Kant DamodarKhandelwal and others versus PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai vide ITA 8772/Mum/2025 and others order dated 24.04.2026, Patna Bench in case of GyanInfrabuild Private Ltd. Versus PCIT, Central, Patna, ITA 175 to 178/Pat/2023 order dated 13.05.2024. As also a similar has been the view of Co-ordinate Bench at Nagpur, in case of Sufalam Infra Project Ltd. Versus PCIT, Central, Nagpur ITA 97/Nag/2019 order dated 29/07/2024and by this Bench, itself, in Kumar Builders versus PCIT, Central, Nagpur ITA 450/Nag/2026 order dated 12.06.2026

P a g e | 18 ITA Nos. 408 to 411/Nag/2026 Haneil Soya Tech Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 to 2022-23) assessments or re-opening assessments concluded with approval of competent authority.

i. Hon 'ble ITAT, Nagpur in the case of Abhishek NagarmalJangid Vs. Pr. CIT (Central), NagpurITA No. 255/NAG/2025 dated 18.05.2026 ii. Hon'ble ITAT, Nagpur in the case of Rajesh KrushnaraoChikte, Nagpur VS. PCIT-1, Nagpur, ITA No. 335/NAG/2025 dated 20.05.2026 iii. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2000| 243 ITR 83 (SC) iv. Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) [01-05-1967] v. Deniel Merchants P. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).23976/2017 vi. Vedanta Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2021]124 taxmann.com 435 (Bombay) vii. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax V. Shri Braham Dev Gupta, ITA 907/2017, 2018:DHC:4397-DB viii. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Infosys TechnologiesLtd., 2012] 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka) ix. Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, [1975| 99 ITR 375 (Delhi)[07-10-1974] x. Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Ankush Garg v. C.I.T., Rohtak, ITA No. 2287 & 2288/Del/2015 dated21.05.2019 xi. Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. ITO, Ward- 3, Hisar, ITA No. 1982/Del/2018 dated25.01.2019 xii. Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Pooja Gupta v. Pr. CIT, New Delhi, ITA No. 4057/Del/2018 dated31.01.2019

P a g e | 19 ITA Nos. 408 to 411/Nag/2026 Haneil Soya Tech Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 to 2022-23) xiii. Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Bhushan Steel Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi., I.T.A.No. 1641/Del/2014 dated 30.03.2015 xiv. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd., [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) xv. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Durga Prasad More, [1971| 82 ITR 540 (SC)[26-08-1971] xvi. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -6, New Delhi V. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd., ITA 49/2018, 2019:DHC:348 xvii. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nova Promoters &Finlease (P) Ltd., [2012] 342 ITR 169 (Delhi) xviii. SajanDass& Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2003] 264 ITR 435 (Delhi) xix. Ram Lal Agarwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut [2006] 280 ITR 547 (Allahabad) xx. Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Shri Hersh W. Chadha v. DDIT, Circle-1(1) I.T.A.Nos.3088 to 3098 &3107/Del/2005 dated 31.12.2010 xxi. T.N. Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2003 260 ITR 82 (SC) xii. NIIT Ltd. Vs. Union of India &Ors.,WP (C) No. 4722/2008, (2009:DHC:5377-DB) xxiii. Hon 'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Kapil Mehta Vs. Pr. CIT(Central), Delhi-3, ITA No.533/Del/2021 dated11.10.2021 xxiv. Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT, [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC) [12-10-2022] xxv. Dinesh Babulal Thakkar v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 2(2), Ahmedabad, [2010] 39SOT 332 (Ahmedabad - ITAT)[31-03-2010] xxvi. K. Ramasamy v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2003] 261 ITR 358 (Madras) xxvii. Rajmandır Estates (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income- tax, Kolkata-III, Kolkata, [2016] 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta) xxviii. SubhlakshmiVanijya (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income- tax-l, Kolkata, 2015] 155 ITD 171 (Kolkata - Trib.)

P a g e | 20 ITA Nos. 408 to 411/Nag/2026 Haneil Soya Tech Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 to 2022-23) xxix. Sunil Siddharthbhai v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1985] 156 ITR 509 (SC)

P a g e | 21 ITA Nos. 408 to 411/Nag/2026 Haneil Soya Tech Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 to 2022-23) conclusion that allegation of inadequate, insufficient or lack of inquiry on the issues for which ld. PCIT had merely caused suspicion without any conclusive determination of his own on the basis of any further inquiry, to hold that the assessment orders are erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Khettra Mohan Roy) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 07.09.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS