SH. KULWANT SINGH LAMBA,PANCHKULA vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

That the Ld. Pr. CIT is not justified in not giving the proper opportunity of hearing, which is against the natural justice and the order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 be quashed.

That the Ld. Pr. CIT is not justified in issuing the notice u/s. 263 and also not justified in passing the order u/s. 263. 3. That the assessment made by Ld. A. O. is not erroneous and also not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT u/s. 263 is bad in law. 4. That the Ld. Pr. CIT is not justified in invoking Explanation 2 of section 263. 5. That all the information on the basis of which the notice/order u/s 263 has been issued/passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT was available with the Ld. AO and has also been duly considered by the Ld. AO. 6. That the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT is on wrong facts and be quashed. 7. That the Ld. Pr. CIT is not justified in passing the order u/s 263 without making any inquiry and in the absence of same the order u/s 263 be quashed. 8. That the Ld. Pr. CIT is not justified to set aside the assessment and directing a fresh assessment without specifically mentioning the same in the show cause notice. 3 9. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.

On the date of hearing, i.e. today, none appeared on behalf of the Assessee though notice of hearing was duly issued to the Assessee well in time. Resultantly, no argument was advanced on behalf of the Assessee.

We have gone through the written submissions filed by the Assessee in which the Assessee has reiterated his submissions as were advanced before the lower authorities. We find that in this case, a detailed order was passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula. We further find that the Ld. PCIT had already discussed the issues and adjudicated the matter at length and gone through each and every aspect of the matter. In the absence of any rebuttal 4 on record / appearance of the Assessee or his authorized representative as well as in the absence of any contrary case law brought on record to the decision arrived at by the Ld. PCIT, we are inclined to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the Ld. PCIT, Panchkula. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. PCIT is confirmed and Assessee’s appeal stands dismissed.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.