M/S. YATHARTH INFRASTRUCTURES (P) LTD.,UJJAIN vs. PR. CIT, UJJAIN

PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM:

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ujjain, M.P. (in short ‘PCIT’) order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of order dated 20.09.2016 passed by the Income Tax Officer-2(3), Ujjain under S.143(3) of the Act for A.Y. –2014-15, whereby and whereunder the said original assessment order

ITA No. 532/Ind/2019 (M/s. Yatharth Infrastructures (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2014-15 2

found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and finally, the issue in respect of trade payables arising out of purchase of properties has been set aside to the file of the Ld.AO for examining the same for the year under consideration.

“In this case, assessee filed return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 29.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.4,67,340/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 20.09.2016 by the AO (ITO-2(3)), Ujjain at the returned income, which is considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the following reasons:- On perusal and examination of records, it is noticed that as per Column 4C of Part-A BS of the return, there is a trade payables shown at Rs.67,26,000/-, which is outstanding for more than one year and Rs.46,05,400/- for others. Thus, the total trade payables was shown at Rs.1,13,31,400/-.

ITA No. 532/Ind/2019 (M/s. Yatharth Infrastructures (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2014-15 3

In compliance, the assessee company submitted that due to some legal matter pending, total payments were not made to the sellers of the following properties:-

(i) Land situated at Malanwasa, Ujjain, purchased from Shri Nanu Ram on 12.12.2011 for Rs.58,45,000/-. (ii) Land situated at Shakkarwasa, Ujjain purchased from Shri Vikram Singh Sanjay Singh on 01.03.2013 for Rs.9,54,450/-. (iii) Land situated at Malanwasa, Ujjain purchased from Shri Vikram Singh Sanjay Singh on 01.11.2013 for Rs.38,42,550/-.

However, as per the registered deed of these properties, sale considerations of the land were paid through cheques. In its support, the assessee filed the affidavits from the sellers. No copy of bank accounts of the above sellers and evidences in respect of legal matters pending are found on record.

In the light of entire facts discussed above. I am of the considered view that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) on 20.09.2016 for the A.Y. 2014-15 in your case is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue, which requires to be revised u/s 263. However, before I proceed to invoke the powers u/s 263 and pass an appropriate order, I deem it proper to give you an opportunity of being herd in the matter.”

It is hereby submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee Company purchased a land for which following payments were due to be paid;

S.No. Name & Address Balance Remark 1 Mannu D/o Mayaram 8,00,000.00 Land Purchase outstanding 58,45,000.00 Land Purchase outstanding 2 Nanuram Bhanwarsingh 3 Nvin Sodani 8,81,000.00 Stamp Vendor 4 Raju D/o Mayaram 8,00,000.00 Land Purchase outstanding 8,00,000.00 Land Purchase outstanding 5 Sanjay singh 6 Seema D/o Mayaram 8,00,000.00 Land Purchase outstanding 7 Shantabai W/o Mayaram 8,00,000.00 Land Purchase outstanding 5,00,000.00 Land Purchase outstanding 8 Vikram Singh Total 1,12,26,000.00

Due to paucity of funds and due to some legal issued in the land, the assessee Company couldn’t cleared the cheques and still the above amounts are appearing as payable under the books of accounts of the assessee. For your kind verification, copies of Balance Sheet from F.Y. 2014-15 till 2017-18 are enclosed

ITA No. 532/Ind/2019 (M/s. Yatharth Infrastructures (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2014-15 4 with this submission. Copies of accounts of above persons are enclosed with this submission for your kind verification under the books of accounts of the assessee company. It is hereby submitted that since, the above payments are still due and cheques were already provided to the sellers of the land and the same were not cleared. Hence, due to cheque becoming sale after the validity period, again the liability created under the books of the assessee Company.”

However, the submission made by the assessee was not found to be acceptable and finally with a finding that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, the issue has been set aside to the file of Ld.AO for re-examining the same upon affording the opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

ITA No. 532/Ind/2019 (M/s. Yatharth Infrastructures (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2014-15 5 support of the case made out by the assessee and also submission made by the Ld.AR, our attention has been drawn to different annexures of the paper book filed before us which has been certified by the Chartered Accountant as duly submitted before the Ld.AO during the course of assessment proceedings. We would like to discuss few events on the issue involved in the matter itself. We find that before the Ld.AO, the assessee duly submitted the Income Tax Return and computation of A.Y. 2014-15 along with copy of the title deed of purchase of immovable property during F.Y. 2013-14.

6.1 So far as this particular issue is concerned, the confirmation in relation to the outstanding payment due to be paid to the parties have been duly submitted by the assessee before the Ld.AO on 11.09.2016. The assessee further submitted the financial statements of those parties before the AO which is appearing from page Nos. 69 to 85 of the paper book filed before us. It is relevant to mention that apart from that the assessee duly submitted the affidavit affirmed by the concerned parties duly notarized confirming the fact that a considerable amount is still payable to them by the assessee. The said affidavits are sworn by those parties mentioned at page No.69 of the paper book filed before us against whom such payment is still due to be paid. Needless to mention that all these affidavits were duly filed before the AO. The confirmation of the accounts of these parties annexed to the paper book commencing from page Nos. 146 to 158 were duly filed before the Ld.AO by the assessee.

6.2 We have carefully considered these documents and we do not find any iota of doubt in respect of submission of all these documents before the

ITA No. 532/Ind/2019 (M/s. Yatharth Infrastructures (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2014-15 6 Ld.AO and further examination of the same by the Ld.AO which is reflecting from paragraph 2 of assessment order.

6.3 Under these circumstances, we need to examine the maintainability of the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act, the statutory provision exercised by the Ld.PCIT in interfering with the order passed by the Ld.AO. In fact, it is to be examined whether the order passed by the Ld.AO can be interfered with by the revisional power of the Commissioner of the Income Tax unless the said order is found to be really erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

6.4 The phrase “prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue” has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Ld. AO. Moreso, every order of Revenue cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as a consequence of an order of the Ld.AO. Apart from that where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. On this ground, the Ld. A.R. has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works Pvt. Ltd. Reported in (2009) 182 taxman 183 (Gujarat). It was further argued by him that upon considering the entire documents, and upon examining different memos issued by different authorities clarifying the distance of the land and upon exhaustive enquiry, the Ld. AO has finalized the assessment accepting the return filed by the assessee which is evident from the assessment order itself and also from the noting made the Ld. AO in the regular order sheet entries, the same cannot be interfered with by the Ld. PCIT. On the contrary, the Revenue pointed

ITA No. 532/Ind/2019 (M/s. Yatharth Infrastructures (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2014-15 7

out that the same is not reflecting from the order passed by the Ld.AO. In reply, it was submitted by the assessee’s Counsel that the assessment order cannot give detailed reasons in respect of each and every item of deduction, which would cause impossible burden on the AO. On this count, he has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Galani, reported in (2018) 95 taxmann.com 261 (Gujarat) and CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd., reported in [2009] 309 ITR 67 (Guj.), wherein Hon’ble High Court held as under:

“22. The contention on behalf of the revenue that the assessment border does not reflect any application of mind as to the eligibility or otherwise under section 80-1 of the Act requires to be noted to be rejected. An assessment order cannot incorporate reasons for making/granting a claim of deduction. If it does so, an assessment order would cease to be an order and become an epic some. The reasons are not far to seek. Firstly, it would cast an almost impossible burden on the Assessing Officer, considering the workload that he carries and the period of limitation within which an order is required to be made; and, secondly, the order is an appealable order. An appeal lies, would be filed, only against disallowances which an assessee feels aggrieved with. 23. As far as absence of discussion in the assessment order is concerned, this is what has been laid down by this court in the case of Rayon Silk Mills v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise on which order under section 263 was made against the assessee, namely, that the Income-tax Officer has not at all examined the goodwill account is not existent. According to him, it is apparent from the record that the goodwill account was thoroughly examined by the Income- tax Officer before making the assessment and after examining when he accepted the contention of the assessee its discussion did not find place in the assessment order, as no additions were going to be made or no modifications in the return filed by the assessee were required to be made in that regard. This contention of the assessee appears to be well-founded. It is true that the assessment order does not speak about the examination of goodwill account as such. However, as we have noticed above, the assessee in his reply to the show-cause notice under section 263 had specifically mentioned that the entire matter was scrutinised and accepted while passing the assessment order. Our attention was also drawn to annexure 'D’. A submission made by the assessee to the Income-tax Officer, Surat, dated 18-10-1976, regarding the assessment year 1974-75 giving detailed chronological data of the constitution of the firm on November

ITA No. 532/Ind/2019 (M/s. Yatharth Infrastructures (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2014-15 8

11, 1968, induction of four more partners on 7-11-1972, the creation of goodwill in the books of account of the firm by debiting the goodwill account and crediting the old partners' capital accounts in their profit sharing ratio on that date, formation of a private limited company in the name of Rayon Silk Mills (P.) Ltd., and its induction into the firm as partner by the deed of partnership dated 27-10-1973, and the dissolution of the partnership firm on 23-2-1974, leaving the private limited company as a sole proprietor thereof and the valuation of the business at the book value as on that date. After giving the chronological sequence of events, the assessee also contended in his submission before the Income-tax Officer that there was no actual transfer of any asset inasmuch as when a partner is admitted into the firm no transfer takes place. It was also contended that no cash transfer took place from person to person and the transfer and the dissolution of the firm also did not result in accrual of capital gains. In the face of this material on record, it is difficult to explain that the assessment order was made without making any enquiry into the goodwill account of Rs. 10,75,000. . . ." (p. 158)

[Except the fact to be pleaded separately in this particular paragraph]

6.5 So far as the jurisdiction of the Ld.PCIT under Section 263 of the Act is concerned, we have carefully considered the judgment relied upon by the assessee in the case of CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd. (supra). We find, while holding the Tribunal committed an error in upholding the exercise of powers under section 263 of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A) to be valid in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to observe as follows:

ITA No. 532/Ind/2019 (M/s. Yatharth Infrastructures (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2014-15 9

has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the Income- tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law."

6.6 Regarding introduction of Explanation 2 to section 263, as claimed by Ld.PCIT in his order, we only need to submit that the present case involves

ITA No. 532/Ind/2019 (M/s. Yatharth Infrastructures (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2014-15 10

AY 2014-15 and the said amendment introduced through Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 is interpreted to be applicable prospectively and not to A.Y. 2009-10. Hence in the first blush, Explanation 2 is not applicable to present case. Even otherwise, it is also held in several decisions that the said Explanation does not give unlettered power to the PC1T to assume revisional-jurisdiction to revise every order of the Assessing Officer to re- examine the issues already examined during assessment-proceeding. It is judicially interpreted in several decisions that the intention of legislature behind introduction of Explanation 2 could not have been to enable the PCIT to find fault with each and every assessment-order in unlimited terms, since such an interpretation would lead to unending litigation and there would not be any point of finality of assessment-proceeding done by Ld. AO.

6.7 At this stage, we refer a recent decision of ITAT, Rajkot in M/s Pramukh Realty, Junagadh, ITA No. 93/Rjt/2022 dated 30.06.2022, where the Hon'ble Bench has extensively dealt a similar case where (i) the assessee had filed details / documents to Assessing Officer during assessment- proceeding; (ii) the AO had considered the same and passed assessment- order thereafter; (iii) Ld. PCIT has made revision invoking Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act. After a thorough analysis, the Hon'ble Bench has held that in such circumstances, revision u/s 263 of the Act cannot be done. The relevant paragraphs of the decision are reproduced below:

"5. The learned AR before us filed a paper hook running from pages 1 to 157 and contended that all the necessary details about the advances received from the parties, sales shown in the financial statement and details of the service tax returns were filed during the assessment proceedings. The learned AR further contended that the assessment was framed by the AO after considering the, necessary details and verification and application of mind. The learned AR in support of his contention drew our attention on pages 151 to 153 of the paper hook where the copy of the notice under section 142(1) of the Act was placed.

ITA No. 532/Ind/2019 (M/s. Yatharth Infrastructures (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2014-15 11

Likewise, the learned AR also drew our attention on pages 154 to 157 of the paper book where the reply of the assessee in response to the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act was placed. Thus, the learned AR contended that there cannot he said that the assessment order is erroneous and causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue in the given facts and circumstances on account non- verification.

7.1 An inquiry made by the Assessing Officer, considered inadequate by the Commissioner of Income Tax, cannot make the order of the Assessing Officer erroneous. In our view, the order can be erroneous if the Assessing Officer fails to apply the law rightly on the facts of the case. As far as adequacy of inquiry is considered, there is no law which provides the extent of inquiries to be made by the Assessing Officer. It is Assessing Officer’s prerogative to make inquiry to the extent he feels proper. The Commissioner of Income Tax by invoking revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act cannot impose his own understanding of the extent of inquiry. There were a number of judgments by various Hon’ble High Courts in this regard.

7.2 Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto 332 ITR 167 (Del.), made a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. The Hon’ble court held that where the AO has made inquiry prior to the completion of assessment, the same cannot be set aside u/s 263 of the Act on the ground of inadequate inquiry. The relevant observation of Hon’ble Delhi High Court reads as under:

“12. …. There are judgments galore laying down the principle that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is not required to give detailed reason in respect of each and every item of deduction, etc. Therefore, one has to see from the record as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between “lack of inquiry” and “inadequate inquiry”. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of “lack of inquiry”, that such a course of action would be open.———

ITA No. 532/Ind/2019 (M/s. Yatharth Infrastructures (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2014-15 12

From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately. This section does not visualise a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decision is held to be erroneous. Cases may be visualised where the Income-tax Officer while making an assessment examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and determines the income either by accepting the accounts or by making some estimate himself. The Commissioner, on perusal of the records, may be of the opinion that the estimate made by the officer concerned was on the lower side and left to the Commissioner he would have estimated the income at a figure higher than the one determined by the Income-tax Officer. That would not vest the Commissioner with power to re-examine the accounts and determine the income himself at a higher figure. It is because the Income-tax Officer has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in him in accordance with law and arrived at conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. There must be some prima facie material on record to show that tax which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation a lesser tax than what was just has been imposed.

7.3 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), discussed the law on this aspect in length in the following manner:

“The consideration of the Commissioner as to whether an order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, must be based on materials on the record of the proceedings called for by him. If there are no materials on record on the basis of which it can be said that the Commissioner acting in a reasonable manner could have come to such a conclusion, the very initiation of proceedings by him will be illegal and without jurisdiction. The Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to starting fishing and roving enquiries in matters or orders which are already concluded. Such action will be against the well- accepted policy of law that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at

ITA No. 532/Ind/2019 (M/s. Yatharth Infrastructures (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2014-15 13

rest judicial and quasi judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity.

7.4 The Mumbai ITAT in the case of Sh. Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO, I.T.A. No. 2690/2691/Mum/2016, dt. 06.05.2016 examined the scope of enquiry under Explanation 2(a) to section 263 in the following words:-

“20. Further clause (a) of Explanation states that an order shall be deemed to be erroneous, if it has been passed without making enquiries or verification, which should have been made. In our considered view, this provison shall apply, if the order has been passed without making enquiries or verification which a reasonable and prudent officer shall have carried out in such cases, which means that the opinion formed by Ld Pr. CIT cannot be taken as final one, without scrutinising the nature of enquiry or verification carried out by the AO vis-à-vis its reasonableness in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, in our considered view, what is relevant for clause (a) of Explanation 2 to sec. 263 is whether the AO has passed the order after carrying our enquiries or verification, which a reasonable and prudent officer would have carried out or not. It does not authorise or give unfettered powers to the Ld Pr. CIT to revise each and every order, if in his opinion, the same has been passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made. In our view, it is the responsibility of the Ld Pr. CIT to show that the enquiries or verification conducted by the AO was not in accordance with the enquries or verification that would have been carried out by a prudent officer. Hence, in our view, the question as to whether the amendment brought in by way of Explanation 2(a) shall have retrospective or prospective application shall not be relevant.”

7.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 2 v. Shree Gayatri Associates*[2019] 106 taxmann.com 31 (SC), held that where Pr. CIT passed a revised order after making addition to assessee's income under section 69A in respect of on-money receipts, however, said order was set aside by Tribunal holding that AO had made detailed enquiries in respect of such on-money receipts and said view was also confirmed by High Court, SLP filed against decision of High Court was liable to be dismissed. The facts of this case were that pursuant to search proceedings, assessee filed its return declaring certain unaccounted income. The Assessing Officer completed assessment by making addition of said amount to assessee's income. The Principal Commissioner passed a revised order under section 263 on ground that Assessing Officer had failed to carry out proper inquiries with respect to assessee's on money receipt. In appeal, the Tribunal took a view that Assessing Officer had carried out detailed inquiries which included assessee's on-money transactions and Tribunal, thus, set aside the revised order passed by Commissioner. The Hon’ble High Court upheld Tribunal's order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP filed by the Department held as under:-

“We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and perused the documents on record. In particular, the Tribunal has in the impugned judgment referred to the detailed correspondence between Assessing

ITA No. 532/Ind/2019 (M/s. Yatharth Infrastructures (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2014-15 14

Officer and the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings to come to a conclusion that the Assessing Officer had carried out detailed inquiries which includes assessee's on-money transactions. It was on account of these findings that the Tribunal was prompted to reverse the order of revision. No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed”

7.6 The Supreme Court in the another recent case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Meerut v. Canara Bank Securities Ltd[2020] 114 taxmann.com 545 (SC), dismissed the Revenue’s SLP holding that 263 proceedings are invalid when AO had made enquiries and taken a plausible view in law, with the following observations:

“Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we see no reason to interfere with the view of the Tribunal. The question whether the income should be taxed as business income or as arising from the other source was a debatable issue. The Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view. More importantly, if the Commissioner was of the opinion that on the available facts from record it could be conclusively held that income arose from other sources, he could and ought to have so held in the order of revision. There was simply no necessity to remand the proceedings to the Assessing Officer when no further inquiries were called for or directed”

7.7 From an analysis of the above judicial precedents, the principle which emerges is that the phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when an Assessing Officer adopts one of the course permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner of Income-tax does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order causing prejudice to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law, or the AO has completely omitted to make any enquiry altogether or the order demonstrates non-application of mind.

7.8 Now in the facts before us, in the case of the assessee the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, made enquiries on this issue and after consideration of written submissions filed by the assessee and documents / evidence placed on record, framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act without making the addition of the amount as note above. This fact can be verified from the notice under section 142(1) of the Act by the AO and submission in reply of the assessee against such notice.

XXXX

7.9 From the above it is revealed that it is not the case that the AO has not made any enquiry. Indeed the Pr. CIT initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the AO has not made enquiries or verification which should have been made in respect of cash deposited during the demonization

ITA No. 532/Ind/2019 (M/s. Yatharth Infrastructures (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2014-15 15

period. It is not the case of the Pr. CIT that the Ld. AO did not apply his mind to the issue on hand or he had omitted to make enquiries altogether. In the instant set of facts, the AO had made enquiries and after consideration of materials placed on record accepted the genuineness of the claim of the assessee. 7.10 At this juncture, it is also important to note that the learned PCIT in his order passed under section 263 of the Act has made reference to the explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act. It was attempted by the learned PCIT to hold that there were certain necessary enquiries which should have been made by the AO during the assessment proceedings but not conducted by him. Therefore, on this reasoning the order of the AO is also erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this regard, we make our observation that the learned PCIT has also not specified the nature and the manner in which the enquiries which should have been conducted by the AO in the assessment proceedings. Thus, in the absence of any specific finding of the learned PCIT with respect to the enquiries which should have been made, we are not convinced by his order passed under section 263 of the Act.”

6.8 We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble ITAT which is on the similar set of facts and law as in the present appeal. Therefore, we too hold that the revision order passed in present case by Ld. PCIT is not a valid order in terms of Section 263 of the Act.

6.9 Thus, considering the entire aspects of the matter, we find that when the original assessment order has been passed under Section 143(3) of the Act by the Ld.AO after due verification of the same issue as raised in the order impugned passed under Section 263 of the Act and that too upon causing exhaustive enquiry and finalising the same after taking a possible view, the invocation of provision of Section 263 of the Act on the basis of change of opinion is, thus, not found to be sustainable. We have also found substance in the arguments advanced by the Ld. AR that the original order needs not to give detailed reason. Further that, when one possible view has been taken by the Ld.AO the said cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In this regard, we are also inspired by the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the judgment passed in the matter of CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd.

ITA No. 532/Ind/2019 (M/s. Yatharth Infrastructures (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2014-15 16

(supra) and CIT vs. Kamal Galani (supra). Under this circumstance, we find the order passed by the Ld. PCIT under Section 263 of the Act is not sustainable and thus quashed.

This Order pronounced on 10/11/2022

Sd/- Sd/- (BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Indore: Dated 10/11/2022 S.K.SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, Indore / DR, ITAT, Indore 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore 1. Date of dictation on 26.09.2022 & 19.20.2022 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 20.10.2022 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S. 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 5. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 7. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………. 8. The date on which the file goes to the Asstt. Registrar for signature on the order…………………… 9. Date of Despatch of the Order………