KOHINOOR TOBACCO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The revision order dated 29.02.2024 is bad in law for other reasons also hence may kindly be cancelled.

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 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.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.