Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM
Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. v Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax s Ltd., Near PHE Water Tank, (Central), Bhopal, Aaykar Bhawan, North Chakardhar Nagar, 48, Arera Hills, Raigarh- 496001 C.G. Bhopal-462011 (M.P.) PAN: AAECB3684L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri R. B. Doshi, CA राज" की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 17.07.2025 : 07.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM:
The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal at Jaba, [in short “Ld. PCIT”], passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 27.03.2025 for the Assessment Year 2018-19, which in turn arises from the assessment order u/s 147 of the Act, dated 24.03.2023 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bilaspur, (in short “Ld. AO”).
2 Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:
1. Ld. Pr. CIT erred in invoking the provisions of sec. 263 and in setting aside the assessment order. Order passed u/s 263 is unsustainable and is passed without appreciating facts & evidences on record properly. The assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order passed u/s 263 is contrary to law, illegal, and unsustainable.
2. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or modify any of the ground/s of appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its Return of Income on 30.10.2018, declaring total income of Rs. 1,13,20, 340/- and the assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 28.12.2019 determined total assessed income of assessee was Rs. 1,42,49,710/-. Subsequently, the case of assessee was reopened u/s 147 on the basis of information received on insight portal of the department which was flagged in accordance with the risk management formulated by CBDT, thereby it is surfaced that the assessee has made bogus sale and purchase transaction from certain parties. After deliberations regarding queries raised by the Ld. AO and response furnished by the assessee, an estimated addition @ 5% amounting to Rs. 22,88,971/- was made on bogus purchase of Rs. 4,57,79,434/- transacted with M/s Abhishek Enterprises and M/s Pratyush Steels. The case of assessee was subsequently, examined by the Ld. Pr. CIT, Central, Bhopal, thereby certain issues were emerged, which in the opinion of Ld. PCIT are to be 3 Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal scrutinized which were not examined or enquired into by the Ld. AO during the reopening assessment proceedings u/s 147, therefore, Pr. CIT exercised his powers conferred upon him as per the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, consequently, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee raising the following issues:
1. On examination of assessment records, it is found that as per information shared by Dar, Central-1, Raipur vide letter dated 13.03.2023, the assessee has made cash transactions of Rs. 70, 00, 000/- with Sky Alloys and Power P Ltd for AY 2018-19 and the AO has not inquired and verified this issue during assessment proceedings.
2. On examination of assessment records, it is observed that the assessee received employee's contribution of PF & ESIC amounting to Rs. 1,86,339/- as observed from column 20(b) of Form 3CD that such amounts have not been paid within the 'due date’ and the AO has failed to inquire and verify that consequently whether these amounts / payments comply with the terms of provision of sec. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act and whether a disallowance is called for. 3. Further, it is found that assessee has debited its P &L account by sum of Rs. 1,69,676/- under the head Donation, however as per ITR, relevant column of 80G the details of donation qualifying for 100% deduction or 50% deduction has been left blank. In view of the debit to the P&L account and the relevant column (pertaining to s. 80G) in 1TR being left blank the AO should have, but failed to, inquire and verify whether such donation amount was qualifying for deduction u/s 80G of the Act. 4. Further it is also observed that the assessee has taken loan from TPS Finvest Leasing Pvt. Ltd of Rs. 55,03,000/-. The AO has not property inquired arid verified the genuineness of the loan transaction despite that the lender company in its ITR has shown total income of only Rs. 10,56,630/- for the .AY 2018-19 and further, net cash flow of the said company is only Rs. 32,32,983/- as against Rs. (67,01,523/-) during the preceding year F. Y. 2016-17. Now that the creditworthiness of the lender being evidently precarious, the relevant bank statement of tender has not been called for to check the liquidity position on and near the loan giving date. Therefore, the AC) has not properly inquired and verified the creditworthiness of the lender company to establish the genuineness of the loan transaction, and, 4 Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal furthermore did not verify / examine, whether the amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- meets the criteria of section 115BBE r.w.s. 68– 69D of the Act, and whether it should have been taxed accordingly u/s 115BBE.
4. Based on aforesaid issues, it was the observation of Ld. Pr. CIT that while framing the assessment, Ld. AO failed to examine the aforesaid 4 issues, as there was no evidence of enquiry, verification or examination of such issues by Ld. AO on the assessment records. Accordingly, the aforesaid issues are well within the meaning of Explanation 2(a) and (b) to Section 263(1) of the I T Act to be taken up for verification through revisionary proceedings, consequently, the order of Ld. AO passed u/s 147 dated 24.03.2023 has been termed to be erroneous, so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
As emanating from the order of Pr. CIT u/s 263, the assessee neither attended the hearing nor submitted any reply to the first notice dated 08.03.2025, therefore, a final show cause was issued on 12.03.2025, in response to which the assessee had submitted a reply which was not found tenable in view of the point wise consideration discussed by the Ld. Pr. CIT, extracted as under:
4. As regards the issue of non-verification of the cash transaction of Rs 70 lakhs of the assessee with M/s Sky Alloys and Power P. Ltd., the assessee has submitted that had the AO received the information before completion of the assessment, he would have taken up the matter in the assessment proceedings. Thereby the assessee has mean to argue that there is no error in the assessment since the AO did not have the information regarding 'Sky' entity before the completion of the assessment vide order dated 24.03.2023. 5 Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal However, on examination of assessment records (including ITBA / Insight portal of department), it is found that the information was shared by the DCIT, Central-1, Raipur through letter dated 13.03.2023 (with its all annexures) by uploading on 15.03.2023 (at / around 13:28 Hrs) on ITBA / Insight Portal of the Department which relates to the shared information whereby the assessee is alleged to have made cash transactions of Rs. 70,00,000/- with Sky Alloys and Power P Ltd. for AY 2018-19. The relevant screenshot of the uploaded information (which is seen to be substantive, with many annexures) on ITBA (Insight) on abovesaid date is as below:
Thus, clearly the information was available with the AO on 15.03.2023, which is much before the date of completion of the assessment on 24.03.2023. 6 Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal Despite the above mentioned stark and telling circumstances, that it is evident from the assessment record that the information was available to the AO well before completion of the assessment, still the AO failed to inquire into and verify the issue involving huge revenue implications. Hence the contention of the assessee that the information was not brought to the notice of the AO during assessment proceedings is not tenable.
5. Further, the objection of the assessee that the details of EPF and ES1 contributions were fully disclosed in the audit report and were already examined is not tenable. On examination of assessment records, it is observed from column 20(b) of Form 3CD, that the assessee received employee's contribution of PF & ESIC amounting to Rs. 1,86,339/- and that such amounts have not been paid within the 'due date'. Despite the matter being evident from the record (such amounts have not been paid within the 'due date'), the AO has failed to inquire and verify whether these amounts / payments comply with the terms of provision of sec. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act and whether a disallowance is called for in view of abundant clarity brought by the SC Judgement in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). Therefore, the AO did not inquire and verify and passed the assessment order without proper consideration of law and application of mind on this issue.
6. Further, as regards the objection of assessee that donation details were duly reported in the books of accounts and were available with the AO during assessment proceedings, is not tenable. It is observed that the assessee has debited its P&L account by sum of Rs. 1,69,676/- under the head Donation. However as per ITR, relevant column of 80G the details of donation qualifying for 100% deduction or 50% deduction has been left blank. The crux of the matter is, in view of the debit to the P&L account and the relevant column (pertaining to s.80G) in ITR being left blank, the AO should have, but failed to, inquire and verify whether such donation amount was qualifying for deduction u/s 80G of the Act.
Therefore, the AO did not inquire and verify and allowed relied without proper inquiry and passed the assessment order without proper consideration of law and application of mind. On this issue as well, he has left loose ends.
As regards the objection of the assessee, that the entire loan (Rs 55,00,000/-) transaction was fully disclosed, verified and accepted by the AO during assessment 7 Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal proceedings and the AO raised specific queries on the creditworthiness of the lender and was satisfied after due verification, is not tenable.
The important and relevant aspect is that AO has not properly inquired and verified the genuineness of the loan transaction despite that the order lender company in its ITR has own total income of only Rs. 10,56,630/- for the AY 2018-19. Further, the net cash flow of the said lender company is only Rs. 32,32,983/- and Rs. (67,01,523/-) (negative) during the preceding year F.Y. 2016-17. Now that the creditworthiness of the lender being evidently precarious, the bare minimum (apart from other inquiries and verification ) the AO is expected to do is to call for relevant bank statement of lender to check the liquidity position on and near the loan giving date. The AO has not done the requisite inquiries and verification Therefore, the AO did not properly inquire and verify and passed the assessment order without proper consideration of law and application of mind. He has left loose ends on this issue too.
After the afore stated point wise consideration / analysis, Ld. Pr. CIT set aside the impugned order of Ld. AO u/s 147 to the extent discussed in the order of 263 and the Assessing Officer is directed to reframe the assessment denovo, as directed, leaving the other issues in the original assessment as such. The assessee is allowed to be afforded with reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set aside proceedings. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order u/s 263, the assessee preferred an appeal before this tribunal, which is under consideration in the present matter.
8 Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal 7. At the outset, Ld. AR representing the assessee submitted a written synopsis referring each point raised by the Ld. Pr. CIT in section 263, the short synopsis submitted before us is extracted hereunder for the sake of clarity:
Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh AY 2018/19 Submission of assessee
Rs. 70 lakh Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd. i) Impugned assessment reopened on the issue of alleged bogus purchases from two parties. ii) In the reopened assessment, as per the settled law, AO could not have made roving enquires in respect of other issues not covered by subject matter of reopening. iii) Scope of reassessment proceedings was thus limited. Within limited scope, if AO did not make other enquiries, order of reassessment could not be termed to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. iv) Material not provided to assessee Material in respect of alleged transactions with Sky Alloys not provided to assessee. It is on the basis of such alleged material only that the reassessment order is being branded as erroneous. Without providing material, such allegation of reassessment order being erroneous and prejudicial could not have been leveled. v) In view of material not provided, opportunity of hearing itself denied. Against the basic requirement of sec. 263. Order liable to be quashed on this account.
9 Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal vi) During reassessment proceedings, complete details of purchases & sales filed before AO. AO accepted book results. Conscious decision taken by AO. Sec. 263 could not be resorted to.
PF/ESIC payment Examined during original assessment & reassessment proceedings. 2. Donation Rs. 1,69,676/- i) Issue could not have been looked into in the reassessment proceedings. On that account, reassessment order could not be termed erroneous or prejudicial. ii) During reassessment proceedings, bills/vouchers of all expenses produced before AO. Reply at PN 25 to 27 of PB. Issue examined & verified by AO. AO did not find any reason to disallow it. Not covered by scope of sec. 263.
3. Loan of Rs. 55 lakh from TPS Fininvest Leasing P. Ltd. i) During reassessment proceedings, AO raised specific query vide letter dated 25.08.2022 (PN 12 to 17 of PB), query no. 4. AO required assessee to fulfill sec. 68. ii) Reply submitted by assessee, placed at PN 25 to 27 of PB, relevant reply at PN 26, para no.4. All documents in terms of sec. 68 filed. Onus discharged by assessee. iii) Documents filed: - Confirmation, PN 69 of PB. Computation & ITR at PN 63 to 68 of PB. Declared total income of Rs. 10,56,630/- & exempt income of Rs. 5,06,867/- on ale of capital gain & dividend. Audit report of lender at PN 35 to 62 of PB. v) Credit worthiness of lender 10 Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal It is an NBFC, Note no. 2.18 on PN 56 of PB. Reporting as per RBI at PN 61 of PB. Balance sheet oflender at PN 43 of PB, net worth of about Rs. 12.18 crore. Profit & Loss ale at PN 44 of PB, it had revenue from operations of about Rs. 50.02 lakhs. It incurs regular expenses on employees, routine administrative expenses etc., PN 51 of PB. Had substantial net profit of Rs. 11.85 lakhs. It had fixed assets worth WDV of about Rs. 1.26 crore, PN 48 of PB which includes Flat, Office building, Furniture, Electrical fittings, Car, Computer, AC etc. It had investment of about Rs. 1.70 crore, mostly in reputed Mutual Funds, PN 49-50 of PB. It had substantial bank balance of about Rs. 54 lakhs, PN 50 of PB. iv) Only adverse observation of Pr. CIT is in respect of credit worthiness, which stands met by the facts & figures mentioned above. v) All these documents, facts & figures are on record. Nothing else was required to be looked into. After considering these, AO did not draw adverse inference. vi) Matter already looked into. Outside the scope of sec. 263. Reliance on: - - CIT vs Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Born.). - Hill Queen Investment (P.) Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (2021) 62 CCH 70 (Kol. Trib.). - Colour Publications P. Ltd. vs Pr. CIT (2018) 196 TTJ 257 (Born.), para 17. - Magic Landcon LLP & Anr. Vs Pr. CIT (2020) 204 TTJ 785 (Del.). vii) Ld. Pr. CIT only looked at returned income, that too of this year. Total resources available in the hands of lender (of about Rs. 12.18 crore) considered by AO and thereafter credit worthiness accepted. Income only is not relevant. Reliance on: - 11 Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal - Anjani Associates vs ITO, dt. 10.08.2018, relevant findings at para no. 16, last 6 lines. - Pr. CIT vs AMI Industries (India) P. Ltd. (2020) 424 ITR 219 (Born.), relevant observations at para no. 20. -BST Infratech Ltd. Vs DCIT (2023) 199 ITD 6 (Kol.). - Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Vrindavan Farms (P) Ltd. (2015) 94 CCH 329 (Del.), relevant finding at para no. 3, 2nd to 4th line. - ITO vs Mis Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 dt. 18.03.2024, relevant findings on para 27.
Referring to aforesaid synopsis, Ld. AR submitted that Ld. Pr. CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction conferred upon him u/s 263 of the Act, to support such contention Ld. AR submitted as under:
8.1 First issue: that the enquiry regarding cash transactions of Rs. 70,00,000/- Sky Alloys Power Pvt. Ltd. was not an issue emanating from the reasons recorded for reopening assessment therefore, the reassessment order could not be termed as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
8.2 Second issue: Apropos, the issue of payment towards employees’ contributions of PF & ESI which were not paid within the due dates of respective statutes, it was the submission by Ld. AR that the same was examined by Ld. AO during the original as well as reopening assessment proceedings, as such information was there before him in the form of tax audit report in form 3CD.
12 Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal 8.3 Third issue: On the issue of donation for Rs. 1,69,676/-, it was the submission that during the reassessment proceedings bills / vouchers of all expenses were produced before the Ld. AO which were examined and verified by the Ld. AO and did not find any reason to disallow the same, therefore, this issue cannot be brought within the scope of revisionary proceedings u/s 263. 8.4 The fourth issue raised by the Ld. PCIT was that the assessee has taken a loan of Rs.55,00,000/- from M/s TPS Finvest Leasing Pvt. Ltd., alleging that Ld. AO has not properly enquired about the genuineness of loan transactions. In clarification, Ld. AR on the issue of loan from TPS Finvest Leasing Pvt. Ltd. submitted that the Ld. AO has raised a specific query letter dated 25.08.2022 vide Q.4 of the said letter (copy placed before us at PB Page no. 12 to 17), to furnish requisite details of all unsecured loan creditors or any kind of fund raised during the year. In response, the assessee has submitted its response vide letter dated 02.11.2022 (copy placed before us at page. 25 to 27), furnishing specific details about the unsecured loans received from TPS Finvest Leasing Pvt. Ltd. The details so furnished are culled out hereunder for the sake of clarity and completeness:
That in period under consideration the assessee has received unsecured loan from M/s TPS Fininvest Leasing Pvt. Ltd., having its Regd. Office at Room No. 42-P, 2nd Floor, Sarvamangal Building , 5 Clive Road, , Kolkata- (WB) 700001,. MOBILE NO. 9893233141 AND EMAIL- DRGSAGRA WAL@YAH0O.C M. The PAN of the Lender is AAACT3827B. All the loan has been accepted through banking channel and the loan is 13 Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal duly Confirmed by the lender. The transactions are verifiable from the bank statements and confirmation letter, copies thereof are also being enclosed herewith. However, for ready reference summary of the transactions is being reproduced below: Particulars Opening Loan taken Repayment of Closing Balance Balance loan Unsecured 0 55,00,000.00 2,22,750.00 52,77,250.00 loan Interest 0 360693.00 36,069.00 3,24,624.00 accrued Total 0 58,60,693.00 2,58,919.00 56,01,874.00 i. The Purpose to procure Un-secured loan is to cover the Working capital requirement. ii. Rate of Interest :- 9% on Reducing balance, Total Interest paid :- Rs. 3,60,693/ and TDS on Interest deducted :- Rs. 36,069/- iii. Copy of ITR-V- Computation and Audit Report of M/s TPS Fininvest Leasing Pvt. Ltd is being enclosed herewith which substantiate the Identity, the genuineness and creditworthy of the Loans given by the lender.
Further, Ld. AR explained that regarding the unsecured loan, the assessee has submitted confirmation, computation, acknowledgement of ITR and audit report of the lender i.e., TPS Finvest Leasing Pvt. Ltd. (Copies of same are placed before us in the assessee’s paper book). It was the submission by Ld. AR that the Ld. AO had examined all the aforesaid documents furnished by the assessee and had not doubted the identity / creditworthiness of the lender as well as the genuineness of the transaction therefore had not made any addition / disallowance on this issue in the reopening assessment order. It was the prayer that since necessary enquiry 14 Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal and examination was done by the Ld. AO and a plausible view was adopted, no adverse inference can be drawn under the revisionary proceedings, as the same is outside the scope of section 263 of the Act. Ld. AR cited certain case laws in support of such contentions, the same are extracted as under:
- CIT vs Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Born.). - Hill Queen Investment (P.) Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (2021) 62 CCH 70 (Kol. Trib.). - Colour Publications P. Ltd. vs Pr. CIT (2018) 196 TTJ 257 (Born.), para 17. - Magic Landcon LLP & Anr. Vs Pr. CIT (2020) 204 TTJ 785 (Del.).
Regarding the creditworthiness of the lender, Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. PCIT only looked into the returned income of the lender and had not taken into consideration the available funds in the hands of lender to the tune of Rs. 12.18 Crore, which was considered by Ld. AO and thereafter creditworthiness of the lender was accepted. In this context, Ld. AR placed his reliance on the following decisions:
- Anjani Associates vs ITO, dt. 10.08.2018, relevant findings at para no. 16, last 6 lines. - Pr. CIT vs AMI Industries (India) P. Ltd. (2020) 424 ITR 219 (Born.), relevant observations at para no. 20. - BST Infratech Ltd. Vs DCIT (2023) 199 ITD 6 (Kol.). - Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Vrindavan Farms (P) Ltd. (2015) 94 CCH 329 (Del.), relevant finding at para no. 3, 2nd to 4th line. - ITO vs Mis Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 dt. 18.03.2024, relevant findings on para 27. 15 Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal 11. In backdrop of aforesaid submission, it was the prayer by the Ld. AR that the invocation of provisions of section 263 and setting aside the impugned order of Ld. AO by passing an order u/s 263 is unsustainable as the same is passed without appreciating the facts and evidence on record properly, therefore, the reopening assessment order passed by the Ld. AO should not be treated as erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, the order u/s 263 therefore, is contrary to the mandate of law, illegal and liable to be struck down.
Per contra, Ld. CIT-DR representing the revenue vehemently supported the order of Ld. PCIT.
We have considered rival submissions, perused the material available on record and case laws relied upon by the assessee. As the present appeal of the assessee has come up to challenge the validity of revisionary proceedings initiated by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act and to adjudicate as to whether the impugned order u/s 263 can sustain on account of certain errors in the reopening assessment order u/s 147 due to which the interest of revenue has been prejudiced. To answer the aforesaid questions, we are splitting the issues raised by Ld. PCIT in two parts, (i) the issues which are not examined or enquired into by the Ld. AO even if those are not the issues which were the basis for reopening of the assessment and (ii) the issues which are examined 16 Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal or enquired into by the Ld. AO and had not made any disallowance or addition in the assessment order, thus, would be impliedly construed as decided with a plausible view.
On perusal of the order of Ld. PCIT, submissions of assessee and the jurisprudence on the issues, we are of the considered view that the issue of (i) unsecured loan, (ii) employee’s contributions of PF & ESI and (iii) the expense claimed under the head “donation”, falls under the first category, as such issues were not examined or enquired into by the Ld. AO during the reassessment proceedings, which could have been enquired into even if the aforesaid issues are not the basis for reopening, as per settled principle of law if any addition / disallowance is made qua the issue on account of which the belief of escapement of income has been formed and the proceedings are initiated u/s 147 of the Act, it would be incumbent upon the Ld. AO to look into all the other issues due to which the interest of revenue has been impaired. Accordingly, we find substance in the observations and in conclusion of Ld. PCIT as per order u/s 263 that such issues which are not examined by the Ld. AO neither any query has been raised during the impugned assessment proceedings therefore, the order of Ld. AO passed under 147 would be construed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
17 Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal 15. Adverting to the fourth issue qua the unsecured loan of Rs. 55,00,000/- received by the assessee from TPS Finvest Leasing Pvt. Ltd., from the information placed before us, it is undisputedly clear that on this issue a query was raised by the Ld. AO vide its letter dated 25.08.2022, specifically raising a question to furnish the complete details of unsecured loans creditors and fund raised during the year, in compliance of which the assessee had furnished the reply with documents pertaining to the lender such as audit report, computation and acknowledgment of ITR and confirmation, which are admitted facts and evidence on the record, however, no disallowance was made by the Ld. AO shows that the response of assessee is accepted by the Ld. AO and had not doubted about the requisite ingredients to invoke the provisions of section 68 of the Act. In view of such facts and circumstances, Ld. PCIT exceeded the revisionary jurisdiction conferred upon him under the provisions of section 263, so far as the issue of unsecured loans is concerned as the same was settled after necessary enquiries by the Ld. AO. No disallowance by Ld. AO cannot be construed as an error in the assessment, so as to be revisited under the revisionary jurisdiction by the Ld. PCIT.
In terms of aforesaid observations, facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the order of Ld. PCIT would sustain to the extent of first 3 issues i.e., (i) unsecured loan, (ii) employee’s contributions of PF & 18 Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal ESI and (iii) the expense claimed under the head “donation”, but regarding Fourth issue qua the unsecured loan of Rs. 55,00,000/-, received by the assessee from TPS Finvest Leasing Pvt. Ltd., the order of Ld. PCIT found to be not in accordance with the mandate of law, as the same has been considered extraneously exceeding the jurisdiction deliberated upon him under the provisions of section 263 of the Act.
Consequently, the impugned order u/s 263 is directed to be amended partially, as per our observation hereinabove.
In result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07/08/2025. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (ARUN KHODPIA) "ाियक सद" / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; िदनांक Dated 07/08/2025 Vaibhav Shrivastav आदेशकी "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant- Bharat Benefication & Power 1. Pvt. Ltd. 2. ""थ"/ The Respondent- Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal 3. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.)