A Z FOODS ,SAMBHAL vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BAREILLY

PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M.

(A)
This appeal vide I.T.A. No.102/Lkw/2022 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned order dated
14/03/2022 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2021-22/1040692203(1) passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (“PCIT” for short),
Bareilly u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short).

Appellant by None
Respondent by Shri Shaurya Shashwat Shukla,
CIT (D.R.)

I.T.A. No.102/Lkw/2022
Assessment Year:2017-18
2

(A.1) In this case assessment order dated 28/12/2019 was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.12,32,795/- (rounded off to Rs.12,32,800/-), as against returned income of Rs.10,41,350/-. This order was revised by the learned Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act vide impugned order dated 14/03/2022. The relevant portion of the aforesaid impugned order of the learned Pr.CIT is reproduced as under:

I.T.A. No.102/Lkw/2022
Assessment Year:2017-18
3

I.T.A. No.102/Lkw/2022
Assessment Year:2017-18
4

I.T.A. No.102/Lkw/2022
Assessment Year:2017-18
5

I.T.A. No.102/Lkw/2022
Assessment Year:2017-18
6

I.T.A. No.102/Lkw/2022
Assessment Year:2017-18
7

(B)
Although there are several ground of appeal, they are all aimed against action of the learned PCIT setting aside the assessment order to be I.T.A. No.102/Lkw/2022
Assessment Year:2017-18
8

framed de novo. For the safe of convenience, all grounds of appeal are taken up together for deciding the appeal. At the time of hearing the assessee was represented by none. The learned CIT (D.R.) for Revenue drew our attention to the fact that the reason for selection of the case for scrutiny was that quantitative details of principal items of goods traded or raw material as well as finished goods were not submitted by the assessee.
The learned CIT (D.R.) submitted that during the assessment proceedings, even this aspect was not examined by the Assessing Officer. He took us through the impugned order of the learned PCIT and placed heavy reliance on it.
(C)
We have perused the materials on record. We have heard learned
CIT (D.R.). In the impugned order, learned PCIT has discussed in detail, how the Assessing Officer did not make inquiry even in respect of the reasons for which the case was selected for scrutiny. Further, the learned
PCIT has also discussed in detail how the Assessing Officer did not make relevant inquiries which were required during the assessment proceedings, having regard to nature and scale of assessee’s business. No material has been brought for our consideration to persuade us to interfere with the impugned order of learned PCIT. Therefore, the impugned order is upheld.
All the grounds of appeal are treated as disposed off accordingly.
(D)
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

(Order was pronounced in the open court on 18/07/2025) . .
(SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA)
Judicial Member Accountant Member

Dated:18/07/2025
*Singh

I.T.A. No.102/Lkw/2022
Assessment Year:2017-18
9

Copy of the order forwarded to :