RTV INTERNATIONAL,SOLAN vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

1

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM
AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No. 131/CHANDI/2021
(िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2014-15)
M/s RTV Vision Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
(successor of M/s RTV International)
Plot No.G-97, Site-5, UPSIDC
Kasna Industrial Area, Greater Noida
बनाम/
Vs.
Pr. CIT
Shimla.
̾थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACCR-4395-J / AALFR-8106-R
(अपीलाथŎ/Appellant)
:
(ŮȑथŎ / Respondent)

अपीलाथŎकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Sameer Kapoor- Ld. AR
ŮȑथŎकीओरसे/Respondent by :
Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (CIT) – Ld. DR

सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
02-07-2025
घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
15-07-2025

आदेश / O R D E R

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

corresponding suppliers. Another observation was that there was increase in all the three partner’s capital account for Rs.40.41 Lacs and there was nothing on record in support of sources thereof. Accordingly, the assessee was show-caused.
4. The assessee assailed proposed revision on the ground that all the information as required by Ld. AO was duly furnished during the course of regular assessment proceedings. The confirmation from creditors was also furnished with the reply. The copies of bank accounts of all the partners were again furnished as evidence for capital introduction by the partners.
However, Ld. Pr. CIT alleged that Ld. AO accepted the explanation of the assessee without conducting any third party enquiry / verification. The Ld.
AO failed to verify the genuineness of increase in sundry creditors.
Further, furnishing of bank statements of partners in justification of capital introduction was not acceptable since AO was required to verify whether the source of capital introduction was fully explained or not by asking respective confirmations along with source of capital introduction. The Ld.
AO failed to verify this aspect. Accordingly, the order was proposed to be revised and Ld. AO was directed to re-assess the income of the assessee by conducting further enquiries. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
5. It could clearly be seen that the assessee’s return of income was subjected to scrutiny specifically to verify large increase in sundry creditors with respect to turnover. During the course of assessment proceedings, certain queries were raised by Ld. AO on this issue. The assessee, vide its reply dated 31-08-2016, duly explained that the assessee was expecting handsome amount of government purchase orders which was the sole reason for increase in sundry creditors since funds got blocked and creditors could not be paid. The assessee furnished complete details of creditors along with their confirmations as required by Ld. AO. Similarly, on the issue of capital introduction, the assessee furnished bank statement of partners to substantiate capital introduction. After due consideration of assessee’s reply, Ld. AO accepted the explanation of the assessee and chose not to make any additions on any of these issues.
6. Upon perusal of all these replies and documents, it could very well be said that whatever information was called for by Ld. AO, the same was duly been supplied by the assessee. The Ld. AO considered the replies of the assessee and after having satisfied with aforesaid explanation as furnished by the assessee, Ld. AO, barring small adhoc disallowance of expenses, chose to accept the returned income of the assessee. It could thus be seen that Ld. AO had raised a specific query on the issues as flagged in the revisionary order and accepted the claim of the assessee with due application of mind. Therefore, it is a case of acceptance of one of the plausible views which was more on facts and the said view could not be said to be opposed to any law or statutory provisions. The Ld. AO, in our opinion, had taken one of the plausible views in the matter and therefore, Ld. Pr. CIT could not be said to be justified in substituting the view of Ld. AO with that of his own view. Simply because some further verification was required or simply because the verification was not done in a particular manner, the same could not justify revision of the order unless it was shown that the view of Ld. AO was erroneous or opposed to any law.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT
(supra) has held that the phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. For example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated by Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgment titled as CIT V/s Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). Similar principal has been followed in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). The ratio of all these decisions is that where two views are possible and AO has preferred one view against another view, order could not be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
8. Therefore, on the given facts, the impugned revision of assessment order could not be sustained in law. We order so. The assessment as framed by Ld. AO stand restored back. The other pleas taken by Ld. AR have been rendered merely academic in nature.

Dated: 15-07-2025. आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant
2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent
3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT
4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR
5. गाडŊफाईल/GF