M/S. NIDHI AGRO PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. PR. CIT- 1, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3516/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 April 2023AY 2012-135 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's revisionary order, finding that the PCIT had applied his own mind and correctly identified the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT directed a fresh assessment with due opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte as neither the assessee nor their representative appeared for hearings. The appeal challenged a revisionary order passed by the PCIT under Section 263.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT correctly invoked revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 based on information from another PCIT, and whether the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: E: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

Hearing: 12.04.2023Pronounced: 18.04.2023

Date of Hearing : 12.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 18.04.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.03.2017 of the Ld. PCIT, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

When the case was called for hearing neither the assessee nor any authorise representative appeared despite several notices. It is also pertinent to mention that earlier on behalf of assessee Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta appeared but thereafter, since four hearings

Page 2 of 5 none is appearing nor any adjournment application has been filed. Therefore we have no alternate but to proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex-party qua assessee after hearing the arguments of Ld. CIT(DR).

3.

From the grounds raised by the assessee and submissions noted by the Ld. PCIT in the impugned order dated 28.03.2017 passed u/s. 263 of the Income Tax 1961 (for short the ‘Act’). The main contention of assessee is that the Ld. PCIT has failed to appreciate the facts of the case, documents and information available in the assessment records, information and explanation submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings as well as during proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act. It is also a contention of assessee that the Ld. PCIT has erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, merely based on borrowed opinion of PCIT-3, Kolkata without application of his own mind. It is also a contention that during the course of search no incriminating documents in respect of share capital have been found and proceeding u/s. 153C of the Act are pending in this case.

Page 3 of 5 4. The Ld. CIT(DR) drawing our attention towards relevant part of revisionary order submitted that the assessee filed certain details whereas the Assessing Officer has not conducted any enquiry or investigation and merely accepted the explanation of the assessee without any reasoning and consideration therefore the Ld. PCIT was right and correct in invoking revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. PCIT was correct in holding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.

5.

On careful consideration of the above submissions, we note that the contention of assessee has noted in grounds of appeal have not been substantiated by the assessee by way of filing any paper book showing the documents, information available in the assessment records, information and explanation submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings as well as proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act. So far as allegation of borrowed satisfaction is concerned impugned revisionary order clearly reveals that the Ld. PCIT has received information from PCIT-3, Kolkata, but before invoking revisionary jurisdiction he has properly applied

Page 4 of 5 his mind to the facts of the case and righty hold the impugned assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the findings arrived by the Ld. PCIT. From the operative part of the impugned revisionary order, we note that the Ld. PCIT has directed the AO to make fresh assessment after properly examining the issue of share capital and premium received by the assessee and has also directed to him to allow due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, in our humble view there is no prejudice to the assessee as during assessment proceedings it may have an opportunity to substantiate and explain his stand by way of supporting documents etc., regarding issue of share capital received by him. Consequently, we hold that no interference is called for the revisionary order of Ld. PCIT and thus we uphold the same.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.04.2023.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →