KOHINOOR TOBACCO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR
Before: SH. KUL BHARAT & SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.48/JAB/2024 A.Y.-2018-19 Kohinoor Tobacco Products Private vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Limited, 903, M.H. House, Gole Bazar, Tax, Jabalpur-1 Jabalpur, M.P. PAN:AABCK7797E (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT DR Date of hearing: 18.09.2025 Date of pronouncement: 19.09.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order Pr. CIT, Jabalpur passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, on 29.02.2024 and 22.01.2024, setting aside the assessment order under section 143(3) passed by the ld. AO on 20.09.2021 accepting the returned income. The grounds of appeal are as under:-
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under Section 263 of the Act is bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2. On the facts circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Act is bad, both in the eyes and on facts, having been passed without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard on adverse opinion drawn from the reply submitted to notice under section 263 in violation of principle of natural justice. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr.CIT has erred both on facts and in law assuming jurisdiction under section 263 in the absence of twin conditions of the order passed by the A.O. being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the
ITA No.48/JAB/2024 A.Y.- 2018-19 Kohinoor Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. Revenue, being satisfied as was held in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Pr.CIT assuming jurisdiction under section 263 is bad in law having been initiated at the instance of audit objection only and merely on presumption assumptions and ignoring the important fact that loan in relevance was duly squared off in same assessment year only. 5. The Id. Pr. CIT Jabalpur seriously erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in wrongly setting the assessment order dated 20-09-2021 despite there being complete application of mind by the AO on the subjected issues being the loans received and squared up was duly verified by the AO, it was nothing but a case of change of opinion, based on which, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 is not permissible. The impugned order dated 29-02-2024, therefore, lacks valid jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and hence, the same kindly quashed." 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr.CIT has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the fact that the proceeding under Section 263 cannot be used for substituting opinion of the A.O. by that of the PCIT. 7. On and the facts circumstances of the case, the order passed by Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable as power to revise can be invoked in the case of lack of enquiry, not in the case inadequate enquiry. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT has erred both on facts and in law in setting aside the matter to the file of the AO without giving a finding as to the error and prejudice caused to the revenue by the assessment order, and as such the order passed is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Pr. CIT has erred both on facts and in law in setting aside the issue of unsecured loan of Rs. 2,01,40,000/- to the file of the Ld AO without properly appreciating the explanation of assessee given during the assessment proceedings brought on record to prove that AO has deeply examined during assessment proceedings itself. 10. The revision order dated 29.02.2024 is bad in law for other reasons also hence may kindly be cancelled. 11. The assessee craves the leave to add or amend any ground of appeal.”
The facts of the case are that on examination of records, the ld. Pr. CIT noticed that statutory liabilities of Rs.22.345/- were not paid before the due date of filing of ITR, which was to be disallowed. Furthermore, the creditworthiness of Jai Satguru Property Pvt. Ltd., which had given an unsecured loan of Rs.2,01,40,000/- to the assessee had not been verified since the evidences such as confirmation letter, bank
ITA No.48/JAB/2024 A.Y.- 2018-19 Kohinoor Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. statement, ITR etc., had not been brought on record and the ld. AO had passed the assessment order accepting the returned income without looking into this aspect. Therefore, the said order was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue in the light of Explanation 2(a) of section 263.
Aggrieved with the same, the assessee filed this appeal before us. However, on the appointed date of hearing, Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ld. AR) filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal pointing out that the assessment proceedings subsequent to the order under section 263 had been concluded in favour of the assessee and therefore, the assessee did not wish to pursue the appeal against the ld. Pr. CIT’s order under section 263. Accordingly, permission was sought to withdraw the appeal.
Sh. Shravan Kumar Meetan, CIT DR (hereinafter referred to as the ld. DR) had no objection to the withdrawal of the said appeal. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19/09/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- [KUL BHARAT] [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 19/09/2025 Sh
ITA No.48/JAB/2024 A.Y.- 2018-19 Kohinoor Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant – 2. Respondent – 3. CIT DR , ITAT, 4. CIT, 5. The CIT(A) By order Sr. P.S.
