GDP AGRO & FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD,GWALIOR vs. P CIT , GWALIOR

Upon perusal of assessee’s reply dated 14-06-2016 as given to Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings, it could be seen that the assessee explained the contents of Annexure B-6, B-5, B-12 & B-13 which were found during the survey proceedings. It was explained that these were offer for purchases only. From the reply, it is quite discernible that the fact of survey proceedings was duly been noted by Ld. AO. The same was discussed and specific queries were raised by Ld. AO on the same. The same fact was brought to the notice of Ld. Pr. CIT in reply to show-cause notice also vide reply dated 16-05-2018. In this reply, the assessee explained that the sales on loose papers were projected sale or sales effected upto AY 2013-14. The papers merely contained jotting / notings and rough calculations. The loose papers were unsigned and the same were in the nature of dumb documents only. However, none of these arguments have been met by Ld. Pr. CIT in the impugned order. Without specific finding as to how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, the impugned revision could not be sustained in law. It is another aspect that the fact of survey was duly taken note of by Ld. AO and after having satisfied with the assessee’s explanation, Ld. AO chose to accept the explanation of the assessee. The Ld. AO looked into the submissions of the assessee and arrived at a satisfaction. In the light of all these facts, it could be concluded that whatever enquiries were required, the same were made by Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings itself. After due consideration of assessee’s submissions, Ld. AO accepted the claim of the assessee with due application of mind. In our opinion, the allegations in the proposed revision are not well founded. The proposed revision is nothing but to make fishing or roving enquiries which is impermissible. 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. Further, no findings have been rendered by Ld. Pr. CIT as to how the order was erroneous.

ITAT AGRA