CONCRETE ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, NAGPUR

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

These appeals 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. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short) passed u/s 147/143(3) 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 of AO who passed the AY passed the order of the Ld. FAA assessment order & appellate order Date of order 412/Nag/26 PCIT(Central) DIN & Order No : DCIT/ACIT, CC-2(2) 2019-20 Nagpur ITBA/REV/F/REV5/20 Nagpur 25-26/1087853199(1) Dated 28.09.2023 Dated: 24.03.2026 413/Nag/26 PCIT(Central) DIN & Order No : DCIT/ACIT, CC-2(2) 2022-23 Nagpur ITBA/REV/F/REV5/20 Nagpur 25-26/1087852999(1) Dated 28.01.2024 Dated: 24.03.2026

P a g e | 3 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) 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 draft 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 various decision.

P a g e | 4 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) 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.

caused the assessee on following premises;

AY: 2019-20:

“4. During the Financial Year 2018-19 relevant to Assessment Year 2019-20, the assessee company received substantial credits in its bank account aggregating to Rs.57,56,845/- from four different entities namely Adhya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.30,00,000/-), Greenland BuildspacePvt. Ltd.(Rs. 19,86,845/-), Qubix Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.2,00,000/-) and Longitude Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.5,70,000/-). The assessee company, claimed to be engaged in investment activities, had filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.76,820/- for AY 2019-20 on 20/03/2020. The case was selected for compulsory scrutiny consequent to search and survey action conducted under sections 132 and 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 17/09/2021, wherein certain transactions indicating tax evasion activities pertaining to the assessee company were unearthed. The assessment proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 147 were completed on 28/09/2023, wherein the the returned total income of Rs.76,820/- was accepted as such, without making any worthwhile enquiries with respect to the aforesaid credits claimed to have been received during the year.”

AY 2022-23:

“4. During the Financial Year 2021-22 relevant to Assessment Year 2022-23, the assessee company was shown to have received substantial credits in its bank account aggregating to Rs.38,00,000/- from three different entities namely Adhya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.20,00,000/-), Ayati Gems Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.9,00,000/-) and Swordfish Venture Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.9,00,000/-). The assessee company, claimed to have engaged in investment activities, had filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,34,460/- for AY 2022-23 on 22/12/2022. The case was selected for compulsory scrutiny consequent to search and survey action conducted under sections 132 and 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 17/09/2021, wherein certain transactions indicating tax evasion activities pertaining to the assessee company were unearthed and were also reported in CASS for reason "verification report through VRU - verification of transaction". The assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were completed on 24/01/2024, wherein the returned total income of Rs.2,34,460/- has been accepted as such, without making any enquiries with respect to the aforesaid credits claimed to have been received during the year.”

P a g e | 5 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) 6. We have considered the rival contentions and have perused the matter on record we find that in the paper book for AY 2019-20, assesse has filed some relevant documents i.e. copy of Show Cause Notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the I.T. Act. 1961 at page No. 1-2. Copy of order passed u/s 148A(d) of I.T.Act, 1961 at page No. 3-4. Copy of Prior Administrative Approval granted by PCIT u/s 151(i) for passing order u/s 148A(d) of I.T.Act, 1961 at page No. 5. Copy of notice issued u/s 143(2) of I.T. Act. 1961 at page 6-9. Copy of reply filed by assesse in response to notice issued u/s 143(2) of I.T. Act, 1961 date No. 10-16. Copy of notice issued u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 at page No. 17-19. Copy of reply filed by assesse in response to notice issued u/s 142(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 at page No. 20-86. Copy of Assessment Order (AY: 2019-20) of Atlantic Vista Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. u/s 147 of I.T. Act, 1961 at page No. 87-88. Certificate of name change of Atlantic Vista Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. from ROC at page no. 89-90. Copy of Assessment Order of Qubix Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. u/s 147 of I. T. Act, 1961 (AY: 2019-20) at page No. 91-93.

P a g e | 6 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) Ltd. Rs.2,00,000/- from M/s Qubix Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.5,70,000/-

from M/s Longitute Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter in para 3 the AO

had observed as follows:

“3. In this case, an enquiry u/s 148(a) of the Act has been conducted after getting prior approval from Pr. CIT (Central), Nagpur and thereafter, on the basis of the information flagged on the INSIGHT Portal and material available on record, a show-cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was issued to the assessee on 22/03/2023. In response to the notice, assessee has not filed any reply to this office. Thereafter, considering the information available on record an order u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961-on 31/03/2023, after taking prior approval from Pr. CIT (Central, Nagpur, has been passed and Notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was issued on 31/03/2023.”

would show that it was only with regard to order passed u/s 148A(d) of the

Act the notice u/s 143(2) pertained. At page 10-16 assessee’s reply to this

notice u/s 143(2) elaborately gives the response of the queries. The notice

u/s 142(1) is available at page No.19 which shows what were relevant

queries raised and for completeness we reproduce the information sought:

“1. Please furnish detailed note on the business activities of M/s. Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 2. Please furnish copies of all relevant bank statements. 3. Please furnish books of accounts such as cash book, bank book, ledger etc. along with supporting documents for verification and audit report & Profit & Loss A/c alongwith its schedules. 4. Please furnish details of new unsecured loan taken and squared off during the F.Y. 2018-19. 5. Please furnish a detailed note on the issues mentioned in the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith supporting documentary evidences. Further, explain that why an amount of Rs.57,56,845/- as mentioned in order u/s 148A(d), should not be added to your income, on account of lack of creditworthiness of the companies who have given such funds to you. 6. Please furnish details of TDS deducted on interest expenses along with supporting documents.”

P a g e | 7 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) 9. This notice was responded by reply copy of which is available at pager No. 20-21 and the same suggest all relevant evidences were made available as sought for. Copy of reply filed by assesse in response to notice issued u/s 142(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 at page No. 20-86, is very factual and exhaustive. We find from the assessment order that the assesse company is shown to be in investment activities and on the basis of search and survey action in Anil Deshmukh group, case of assesse was reopened and relevant notice u/s 142(1) along with 143(2) were issued and inquiry of the ld. AO has reasonably concluded as follow:

“5. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) were issued to the assessee on various dates. The assessee was requested to furnish the details of business activity, copy of bank statement, books of accounts for verification, and detailed note on discrepancies in the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act. In response to the notices, the assessee submitted copy of bank statement, and other details. The assessee has also produced books of accounts for verification. The same has been verified on test check basis. The detail submitted by the assessee is placed in the file for record.”

P a g e | 8 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) 7.5 The burden of proving that these inter-corporate transactions are genuine lies squarely on the assessee, and merely routing transactions through banking channels and producing ledger accounts and bank statements of group companies does not discharge that burden. The AO was bound to verity independently, including source to source, more so when the creditor companies were showing nil or meagre income in their returns of income, which is wholly inconsistent with their capacity to receive large advances or repay them, and which the AO failed to examine. 7.6 Upon detailed examination of the financial credentials of the creditor entities across multiple financial years, it is noticed that M/s Longitude Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. consistently reported zero revenue from operations, zero business income and zero total income across all relevant financial years, yet is shown to have had a debit balance of Rs.5,70,000/- outstanding against the assessee from an earlier year and shown to have repaid the same. M/s Greenland BuildspacePvt. Ltd., despite advancing Rs.19,86,845/- to the assessee and receiving advances from the assessee company, had reported business income of only Rs.1,56,284/- for F.Y. 2018-19, an amount utterly disproportionate to its capacity to be party to transactions running into lakhs of rupees. M/s Qubix Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. had reported business income of only Rs.3,02,251 - for F.Y. 2018-19, yet is shown to have received Rs.45.15 lakhs in advances from the assessee during the year and shown to have repaid Rs.66.90 lakhs, a total transaction flow of over Rs.1.12 crores in a single year with a company that earns barely Rs.3 lakhs per annum. M/s Adhya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. reported meagre business income ranging from Rs.6,255/- to Rs.13,150/- during F.Y. 2017-18 to F.Y. 2019-20, yet was party to aggregate transactions of over Rs.66.55 lakhs being advanced to it and Rs.30.00 lakhs being repaid during the year. These (financial profiles fundamentally question how companies with nil or negligible income could have received such enormous sums as advances from the assessee company in the first place, and how they could have repaid or transacted in such large amounts in the year under consideration. The AO did not notice for examine this critical inconsistency at all. 7.7 The assesses core defence, that the amounts received are merely repayments against pre-existing opening balances or against amounts advanced during the year, and are therefore not fresh credits, does not resolve the underlying question; what was the source and basis of those pre-existing opening balances themselves, and how was the assessee company, which itself declared total income of only Rs.76,820/- for A.Y. 2019-20, in a position to advance enormous sums aggregating to several crores of rupees to multiple nil-income group entities during previous years and the current year? What were the 4 entities doing with that money? What is the source for those 4 entities which claimed to have repaid the money to the assessee? All these crucial questions remain unanswered. In the case of M/s Qubix Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. alone, the opening debit balance was Rs.39,31,755/-, to which a further Rs.45.15 lakhs was added during the year, meaning the assessee had outstanding over Rs.84 lakhs receivable from a company earning barely Rs.3 lakhs a year. Similarly, in the case of M/s Adhya Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., the assessee had advanced Rs.66.55 lakhs to a company with income of only Rs.6,255/- to Rs.13,150/- per annum. Consequent upon search and survey action on the group, the Investigation Wing flagged that these companies could be paper companies with dubious and suspicious credentials. 7.8 No explanation has been furnished as to the commercial rationale for advancing such enormous sums to nil-income group entities, and no verification of the nature, basis and history of those advances was conducted by the AO. The AO was required to examine not just the repayment leg of the transactions but also the advances leg, both in the current year and in the prior years, to determine whether the entire circular

P a g e | 9 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) arrangement was a sham, which the AO failed to do. In the specific case of M/s Longitude Warehousing Pvt. Ltd., the assessee had an opening debit balance of Rs.5,70,000/- receivable from a company with consistently nil income, a fundamental question that needed to be answered: how did the assessee advance Rs.5.70 lakhs to a nil-income company and why, which the AO never examined. 7.9 It is pertinent to note that there is no office note on record to suggest the reasons for not investigating into the search and survey findings from Investigation Wing. The case was selected for compulsory scrutiny and was the subject of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 consequent to the search and survey action conducted under sections 132 and 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 17.09.2021, wherein certain transactions indicating tax evasion activities pertaining to the assessee company were unearthed and certain information gathered from the Insight Portal and the Investigation Report was specifically used as the basis for the Order u/s 148A(d) passed on 31.03.2023. Despite this, the AO accepted the returned income of Rs.76,820/- in the reassessment order u/s 147 dated 28.09.2023 without recording any independent findings whatsoever on the specific credits flagged, without examining the source to source of the transactions, and without examining the commercial rationale for the entire arrangement of fund flows mutually among these group entities. The AO merely accepted the assessee's submissions on face value, that the receipts were repayments, without conducting any independent verification. The reassessment order thus passed is without making inquiries or verification which should have been made, squarely within the meaning of Explanation 2(a) to Section 263 of the Act.”

years, is not in the nature of credit entry, as such, but it is the return of

money as shown in opening balance. Then in AY 2019-20 Rs. 19.68

received from m/s Greenland Build Space Pvt. Ltd is also refund of

amount already advances, credit o Rs. 5.70 lacs from M/s Longitude

Warehousing Pvt. Ltd was opening balance and credit of Rs.2 lacs form

Qubix Hospitality is also refund. In AY 2023, assessee has credit of 16

lacs from associate corporate M/s Ayati Gems instead of Rs. 9 lacs alleged

by ld. PCIT and same was also opening receivable. Credit of 9.lacs from

Swordish Venture Pvt. Ltd was well explained and the facts is it was

P a g e | 10 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) repaid by banking channel in subsequent years as appearing from PB. Thus, we find that the aforesaid queries and response of the assesse when considered would show that ld. AO has raised all relevant queries and reached conclusion which to the understanding of ld. PCIT, was incorrect but the whole of the order of ld. PCIT only mentions of the facts which should have been found to be suspicious but 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 filed by the assesse by the AO and Ld. PCIT cannot lead to a conclusion that the AO’s inferencesor conclusions form thee inferences 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 ld. AO was not a reasonable and rational conclusion so as to be said to be not in accordance with law.

P a g e | 11 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) capital reserves were sufficient for AO to reach a conclusion which may not be appreciable from a higher wisdom of ld. Revisionary Authority but that does not make the impugned assessment order prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the basis that lack of inquiries by the AO.

P a g e | 12 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) conclusion of acceptance of transaction as genuine was not sustainable in law.Therefore, if the ld. PCIT intended to hold that there is any error in the order of the Assessing Officer, which can be corrected by further enquiry then ld. PCIT should give a categorical finding by his own enquiries and investigations, howsoever, minimal be that. Specially, why assesse’s response to notice issued u/s 142(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 at page No. 20-86, should have been rejected altogether.

P a g e | 13 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) “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 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.”

P a g e | 14 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) 16. 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 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.

P a g e | 15 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) 17. Addressing contention of ld. DR that assessment order is silent on enquires and resultant findings, we are of considered that on its own this cannot lead to inference that no enquiry was made.In this regard we are of considered view that the sufficiency or absence of AO's enquiry must be ascertained from the assessment records as a whole, not merely from the written order.

"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 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

P a g e | 16 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) 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.” 19. Similarly Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. VikasPolymers[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." 20. 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

P a g e | 17 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) 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 considered view when assessing officer had opportunity to examine the

P a g e | 18 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) 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 | 19 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) Madras High Court in PCIT versus Prabhakar Developer (P) Ltd. (2024) 162 taxmann.com 48 (Mad) as relied by Delhi 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 | 20 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) 22. The decision of ld. DR has relied in case of T.N Civil Suplies Corp.

Ltd. Case (supra) we find that was a case where assessment was

completed u/s 144B of the Act, and in that case there is actually no need

for assessing officer and the authority issuing direction, to have their

respective, reasoning for assessment and directions issued u/s 144A of the

Act, as in case of search assessments or re-opening assessments concluded

with approval of competent authority.

conclusion, however, for completeness we like to observe that ld. DR has

placed voluminous legal paper book where he has referred the following

judgments:

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

P a g e | 21 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) xii. Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Pooja Gupta v. Pr. CIT, New Delhi, ITA No. 4057/Del/2018 dated31.01.2019 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.) xxix. Sunil Siddharthbhai v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1985] 156 ITR 509 (SC)

decisions relied by ld. DR are distinguishable on facts and in fact in regard

P a g e | 22 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) to basic principle for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 for which we have relied the aforesaid decisions in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) there can be no denial that the principles holds good and therefore, these judgments do not help the case of ld. DR. However, as he has also referred the two cases of Coordinate Bench of Nagpur in Abhishek Nagarmal Jangid (supra) and Rajesh Krushnarao Chikte (supra) we distinguish them on facts as in case of Abhishek Nagarmal Jangid (supra) the Coordinate Bench had examined the issue that AO had accepted additional income offered by assesse which was not disclosed in the regular books of account and thus, the error was found in accepting only 8% of such unrecorded sales without conducting proper verification. Similarly, in case of Rajesh Krushnarao Chikte (supra) the Bench was dealing with an issue where AO had failed to examined applicability of provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act in respect of purchase of immovable property by the assesse. Thus, in peculiar facts the Coordinate Bench in these two decisions had sustained the orders of ld. PCIT but in the case before us we have dealt aforesaid we find that primarily on the basis of relevant queries being raised and response of the assesse we have drawn conclusion that allegation of inadequate, insufficient or lack of inquiry on the issues for which ld. PCIT had merely caused suspicion without any

P a g e | 23 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/Nag/2026 Concrete Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AYs: 2019-20 & 2022-23) 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