GOEL EISHA CAPITALS,PUNE V. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1006/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Goel Eisha Capitals against the order of the PCIT, Pune, which set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2019-20 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The PCIT's order was based on the grounds that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined or verified certain provisions made by the assessee for construction and development expenses and defect warranty, which were claimed to be incurred for future periods despite the completion of the project. The Tribunal, after reviewing the detailed submissions and the specific queries raised by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, concluded that the Assessing Officer had made adequate inquiries and the assessee had provided satisfactory explanations, thus setting aside the PCIT's order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 46956 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Rampyari Devi Saraogi v CIT, Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT, Vedanta Ltd. Vs CIT, Nagal Garment Industries Pvt Ltd Vs CIT, CIT Vs Shri Braham Dev Gupta, Ankush Garg v CIT, Rohtak, Bhushan Steel Ltd., New Delhi vs ACIT, CIT vs Infosys Technologies Ltd., Ramesh Kumar vs ITO, Gee Vee Enterprises vs AddI. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMOL KHAIRNAR
• Assessee Lawyers: KRISHNA GUJARATHI; A JOURNAL ENTRY DATED WHEREIN COMPLETE
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Revenue expenditure; Business expenditure; Question of law; Corroborative evidences; Income from undisclosed sources; Capital expenditure; Gross profit estimation; Search and seizure; Valuation report; Assessment record; Revision of order; Prejudicial to interest
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 119; 263; 132; 22; 13; 69A; 2(A); 72; 20

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Goel Eisha Capitals 6th Floor, San Mahu Complex 5, Bund Garden Road, Opp Poona Club, Pune – 411001 Vs. PCIT (Central), Pune PAN : AAJFG0543R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Krishna Gujarathi Department by : Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 06-02-2025 Date of pronouncement : 07-04-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.03.2024 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) by the Ld. PCIT (Central), Pune, relating to assessment year 2019-20. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. PCIT in setting aside the order u/s 263 of the Act passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) with a direction to frame a fresh assessment order after necessary examination / verification / enquiries. 2 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of real estate. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s Goel Eisha Capitals of Goel group of cases on 10.01.2019. The assessee filed its return of income on 30.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.8,54,65,340/-. The case was selected for compulsory scrutiny and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with a questionnaire was issued on 03.11.2020 and 11.12.2020. The assessee responded to the above statutory notices by furnishing the details through e-proceedings portal which were verified by the Assessing Officer. After verifying the details, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 21.04.2021 determining the total income at Rs.11,53,82,340/- wherein he made addition of Rs.74,17,000/- on account of difference in the valuation report of the DVO and the value declared by the assessee in respect of value of various shops of “Ganga Platino”. Similarly, he also made addition of Rs.2,25,00,000/- on account of provision for warranty. 4. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT examined the record and noted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2019-20 prima facie appears to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He, therefore, issued a show cause notice asking the assessee to explain as to why the order should not be set aside / modified within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. The relevant notice issued by the Ld. PCIT reads as under: 3 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 “02. In the above mentioned case, on verification of case records for A.Υ. 2019-20 it has been observed that the assessee had filed return of income for AY 2019-20 on 30.10.2019 declaring total income at Rs. 8,54,65,340/-, The case was selected under Compulsory Scrutiny and the scrutiny assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'Act') on 21.04.2021 at assessed Income of Rs. 11,53,82,340/ 03. On perusal of the assessment records it is seen the assessee had carried out a project viz. \"Ganga Platino\" in Kharadi, Pune under Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with \"Viva Highways Pvt. Ltd. (land owner)\", wherein the assessee was the developer having 70% share in revenue and has followed the \"percentage completion method for revenue recognition. Further, the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs.9,87,26,677/- as \"Provision for Construction Expenditure\" for pending work pertaining to the residential towers P, Q &R of the Housing project \"Ganga Platino\". On perusal of the assessment records it had been found that the assessee had created a provision of Rs.9,87,26,667/- towards cost to be incurred for completion of construction of building P, Q & R and adjoining podium and incurred expense of Rs.7,43,19,308/- towards the same. The balance amount of Rs.2,44,07,369/- was written back as \"Provision of Expenses Written Back\" in AV 2020-21. 3.1 On perusal of assessment records, it is seen that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has verified all the above facts and accepted the claim of the assessee but inadvertently did not take into account that the date of completion of the concerned project was 19/04/2018. Therefore, the rationality & necessity for making such a provision for construction & development expenses to be incurred in future' by the assessee even when majority of the work was completed on or before 19/04/2018 was not questioned by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO failed to question the same during the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration. 3.2 Further, it is seen that all the expenses under consideration i.e., debit expense of Rs.7,43,19,308/- to 'Provision for Construction Expenditure' and Rs.2,44,07,369/- written back as 'Provision of Expenses Written Back' have been booked by the assessee by a journal entry dated 31/03/2020 wherein complete details of the expenses debited to the respective ledgers are not available on record thereby making it difficult to ascertain the genuineness & authenticity of the same. The fact that the assessee firm had incurred such huge expenses amounting to Rs.7,43,19,308/- after the completion of the work related to buildings P,Q & R of the project 'Ganga Platino' is also not palatable. The AO should have disallowed the 'provision for construction expenses to be incurred in future' debited to the P&L account. The AO failed to disallow the same during the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration. 04. In view of the above, it is found that the no verification on the aforesaid issues has been done in the assessment proceedings by the AO. As per explanation (2) to section 263(1) of the Act an order without making inquiries or verification which should have been made is deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 05. Considering the above facts of the case it is seen that the AO has not examined and verified the above issues and therefore income has been under assessed. Therefore, assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 21.04.2021 passed by the AO for A.Y. 2019-20 appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 06. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act in the case of M/s Goel Eisha Capitals for A.Y.2019- 20 prima facie appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue in terms of the provisions of Explanation-(2)(a) to Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act. I, therefore, intend to set aside/ modify the assessment order within the meaning of section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. An opportunity of being heard is therefore, given to you. You are requested to attend in person or through your authorized representative on 22.01.2024 at 12:30 PM in my office. 07. If you have authorized any representative to attend on your behalf, please ensure that the Power of Attorney with proper court fee stamp is filed on or before the date of hearing If you do not wish to attend in person or through your authorized representative, you may file written submission along with necessary evidence in support of your contention before the due date of hearing. Further, it may be noted that no adjournment will be provided and in case on non appearance/non submission of reply, order will be passed on merits.” 5. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and relying on various decisions, the Ld. PCIT set aside the order to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining the above issue in details while framing the fresh assessment order by observing as under: “5. I have carefully considered the issue in the show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act and also the submission made by the assessee on this issue. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO had raised queries regarding allowability of provisions for expenses but he failed to acknowledge the fact that the date of completion of the project was 19.04.2018 and thus the AO should have questioned the rationale behind making provision for 'construction & development expenses to be incurred in future. However, the AO had not questioned the same. Further, it is seen that the Project 'Ganga Platino' was already completed on 19.04.2018, and the total expenses booked after completion of the project under the head of 7,43,19,308/-after the completion of the work related to buildings P,Q & R of the project 'Ganga Platino'. The assessee had not submitted the details of the expenses incurred after the completion of the said projects and as to how the same were allowable. The Assessing Officer has not carried out proper examination / verification /enquiries in the course of assessment proceedings with respect to the above mentioned issue and as such there was lack of examination/verification/enquiries on the part of Assessing Officer. 5 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 6. In view of the above facts, it is clear that the above issue has not been properly examined/verified/enquired upon by the Assessing Officer during the course of the assessment proceedings. It has been held by various Courts that lack of enquiry on the germane issue renders the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this connection the following judicial pronouncements are relied upon:  The Hon. Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi v CIT 67 ITR 84 while taking note of the fact that the AO had concluded the assessment in \"undue hurry\" by passing a short, stereotyped assessment order, without making any inquiries, upheld the revision done by the CIT.  In the case of Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO dated 29.11.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the law as laid down by the High Courts in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT 155 ITD 171 (Kol), Rajmandir Estates 386 ITR 162 (Cal) etc. and held that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 on the ground that the AO did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned.  In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)/[2000] 159 CTR 1 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where Assessing Officer had accepted entry in statement of account filed by assessee, in absence of any supporting material without making any enquiry, exercise of jurisdiction by Commissioner under section 263 was justified.  In the case of Vedanta Ltd. Vs CIT[2021]124 taxmann.com 435(Bombay)/[2021] 279 Taxman 358 (Bom), it has been held that where assessment was completed without proper inquiries, Commissioner was competent to invoke revisional jurisdiction and direct Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.  In the case of Nagal Garment Industries Pvt Ltd Vs CIT [2020]113taxmann.com 4 (Madhya Pradesh) [03-04-2017], it has been held that where Assessing Officer issued detailed questionnaire, in reply to which records were filed, but Assessing Officer did not apply his mind nor did he conduct an enquiry while accepting claim of assessee although he recorded in note-sheet that reply filed by appellant was not satisfactory and did not explain all facts, assessment order was to be revised  The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Shri Braham Dev Gupta in ITA no 907/2017 and 1162/2017 has clearly decided that Pr. Commissioner of Income tax can invoke the provision of section 263 of Income Tax Act where AO has not made adequate enquiry and verification. In this matter, SLP of the assessee has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court.  The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Ankush Garg v CIT, Rohtak in ITA No 2287 & 2288/Del/2015 dated 21.05.2019, upheld the Pr. CITs action u/s 263 by holding that the order of the AO was cryptic, and was not passed after due examination and verification of certain issues and therefore, there was an error on the part of AO which led to a correct 6 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 conclusion of the CIT that the order of the AO was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.  In the case of Pooja Gupta in ITA No 4057/Del/ 2018 dated 31.01.2019, the ITAT Delhi has discussed the validity of action under section 263 in respect of penny stock matters. The Tribunal has referred to the detailed SOP issued by the CBDT, CBDT Instruction dated 16.03.2016 on penny stock/LTCG, and other specified parameters in this order, and held that the order u/s 263 was justified since there was complete lack of inquiry with regard to the perspective for which the case was selected for scrutiny, and that the AO had merely relied on the assessee's submissions.  The decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Bhushan Steel Ltd., New Delhi vs ACIT dated 30 March, 2015 is relevant to note as it relates to the aspect of lack of inquiry at the end of the AO for valid initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Act.  Hon'ble High Court OF Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. 341 ITR 293 dated 04.01.2012 has held that section 263 is a section which enables the Commissioner to have a look at the orders or proceedings of the lower authorities and to effect a correction, if so needed, particularly if the order or proceeding is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, It is also held that the Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case, ITO should have made further inquiries before accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return.  Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Ramesh Kumar, ITA No. 1982/Del/2018 for A.Υ. 2014-15 order dated 25.01.2019 has observed as under- On going through the facts, it can be observed that the Assessing Officer has not conducted any enquiry and this is a clear case of lack of enquiry not a case of inadequate enquiry. Further non application of mind by the Assessing Officer can be easily gauzed from the fact that the information available with the Assessing Officer has not been utilised during the assessment proceedings which makes the case fit for applying the provisions of explanation 2 (a) of section 263.  Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs AddI. CIT 99 ITR 375 has clearly held that the Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case. ITO should have made further inquiries before accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return. 7. Provisions of Explanation 2 of Section 263 (1), are reproduced here under: Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,- 7 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119 or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the judicial pronouncements as discussed above, it is held that the assessment order dated 21.04.2021 for A.Y. 2019-20 has been passed by the AO without making necessary examination/verification/enquiries on the issue mentioned above and accordingly, the same is held to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue: 9. Accordingly, the said assessment order dated 21.04.2021 is hereby set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining the above issues in detail while framing the fresh assessment order. The Assessing Officer shall make necessary examination, verification and enquiries in respect of the above issue after giving adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to pages 38 to 52 of the paper book drew the attention of the Bench to question No.11 in the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act which reads as under: “11. During the course of search at the office premises of Mr. Subhash S. Goel and his concerns at Ground Floor, 5, San Mahu Complex, Bund Garden Road, Pune, statement of Mr. Subhash Goel was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 12.01.2019. In his statement, Mr. Subhash Goel was questioned to submit details of Work-In-Progress(WIP) of its all mojor concerns and details of revenue going to be recognized by following Percentage Completion Method of accounting by 31.03.2019. In reply to Q.No.36 & 37 of his aforesaid statement, he offered sales of Rs.208,82,98,161/- out of total WIP amounting to Rs.52,91,90,295/- to be booked by 31.03.2019. The recognition of sales consideration to tax for F.Y.2018- 19 was worked out considering the stage completion certificate of the projects as 8 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 on 12.01.2019 submitted by concerned projects architect. Relevant part of the statement of Mr. Subhash Goel is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: During the course of post-search/survey investigation, Mr. Subhash Goel was time and again requested to submit workings of net profit out of the sales consideration offered to tax for F.Y.2018-19. However, the same has not been submitted and it was merely argued that finalization of books of accounts of concerns of the group are in progress and after finalization of the same, due taxes will be paid before end of due date of filling of returns of income. In view of above, you are requested to state whether above declared income is offered in ITR of FY 2019-20. Also, furnish of working of profit as per percentage completion method.” 8. Referring to page 54 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to question raised by the Assessing Officer in the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act on 02.02.2021 wherein he had asked specifically regarding the expenditure of Rs.9,87,26,677/- incurred on account of 9 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 construction and development expenses. Referring to pages 55 to 59 of the paper book, Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the details given regarding the provision for construction expenditure. Referring to page 71 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to question raised by the Assessing Officer in the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act on 03.04.2021 wherein again the provision of expenses of Rs.9,87,26,677/- was specifically asked. Referring to page 72 to 75 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the reply given by the assessee on 10.04.2021 regarding the same. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had specifically asked the questions regarding the allowability of provision of expenditure. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that since the Assessing Officer had made specific enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings with regard to the allowability of provision of expenditure and the assessee had given the detailed reply and it is not a case of lack of enquiry, therefore, the Ld. PCIT was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act: 1. THE PCIT VS PRAKHAR DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, ITA 182 OF 2023 (MADHYA PRADESH HC) 2. M/S. B.U BHANDARI SCHEMES VS. THE PCIT, ITA NOS.637 ΤΟ 641/PUN/2018 (ITAT PUNE) 3. SHRI RAMAMOORTHY VASUDEVAN VS. THE PCIT, ITA NOS 968/PUN/2016 (ITAT PUNE) 4. MEHTAB ALAM SULTAN VILLA, JAJMAU VS, ACIT, KANPUR, ITA NOS 294/LKW/2014 (ITAT LUCKNOW) 5. CIT VS SUNBEAM AUTO LTD, ITA NO. 1399 OF 2006 (DELHI HC) 10 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 6. BISMILLAH TRADING CO. VS. INTELLLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO. II, [2001] 248 ITR 292 (KERALA HC) 7. CIT VS. GABRIEL INDIA LIMITED, ITR 145 OF 1980 (BOMBAY HC) 8. PCIT VS. M/S AMBIT MULTITRADE P. LTD. ITA 1399 OF 2016 (BOMBAY HC) 9. CIT VS. M/S. FINE JEWELLERY (INDIA) LTD, ITA 296 OF 2013, (BOMBAY HC) 10. M/S. ANGRE PORT PRIVATE LTD. VS. PCIT, ITA NO 1025/PUN/2016 (ITAT PUNE) 11. M/S DWARKADHIS BUILDWELL PVT.LTD. VS CIT, ITA NO 3097/DEL/2014 (ITAT DELHI) 12. SANJAY AMRUTRAO SATAV (HUF) VS. ITO, ITA NO.200/PUN/2021 (ITAT PUNE) 13. M/S S.R. TRUST VS. THE PCIT, ITA NO. 213/CHNY/2022 (ITAT CHENNAI) 14. PCIT VS. DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD, ITA NO. 705/2017 (DELHI HC) 15. TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. DCIT, I.T.A. NO. 164/AHD/2018 (ITAT AHMEDABAD) 16. ZAHURAHMED ABDULRAZZAK VALJIWALA VS.PCIT ITA NO. 76/AHD/2022 (ITAT AHMEDABAD) 17. PCIT VS. M/S, FORUM AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD, ITA 564/2019 (DELHI HC) 18. MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS CIT, C.A. 3646 OF 1993, (SUPREME COURT) 9. He accordingly submitted that the order passed by the Ld. PCIT be set aside. 10. The Ld. DR on the other hand while supporting the order of the Ld. PCIT submitted that the Ld. PCIT had given justifiable reasons while setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer since the Assessing Officer in the instant 11 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 case has not properly examined / verified / enquired the rationale and necessity for making such provision made to be incurred in future when the project had already been completed on 19.04.2018. Relying on various decisions relied on by the Ld. PCIT in the body of 263 order, he submitted that the order passed by the Ld. PCIT being in accordance with law should be upheld and the appeal filed by the assessee should be dismissed. 11. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. PCIT and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 21.04.2021. Before completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer in the questionnaire attached to the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 02.02.2021 has asked the following details: “GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT To GOEL EISHA CAPITALS 6TH FLOOR SAN MAHU COMPLEX,5 BUND GARDEN ROAD OPP POONA CLUB PUNE 411001,Maharashtra India PAN: AAJFG0543R AY 2019-20 Dated 02/02/2021 DIN & Notice No ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2020- 21/1030292594(1) Notice under sub-section (1) of Section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Sir/ Madam/M/s, 12 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 In connection with the assessment for the assessment year 2019-20 you are required to a) Furnish or cause to be furnished on or before 09/02/2021 at 11:00 AM the accounts and documents specified overleaf, b) Furnish and verified in the prescribed manner under Rule 14 of 1.T. Rules 1962 the information called for as per annexure and on the points or matters specified therein on or before 09/02/2021 at 11:00 AM. c) The above mentioned evidence/information is to be furnished online electronically in 'E-Proceeding facility through your account in 'e-filing' website of Income Tax Department d) Para(s) (a) to (c) are applicable if you have an account in e-filing website of Income Tax Department. Till such an account is created by you, assessment proceedings shall be carried out either through your e-mail account or manually (if e-mail is not available). e) In cases where order has to be passed under section 153A/153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 143(3), assessment proceedings would be conducted manually Yours faithfully, SWAPNIL SHARADRAO PATIL CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE ANNEXURE 1. Furnish confirmation of unsecured loan parties. 2. From the Profit and Loss account, it is seen that an expense of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- has been debited on account of defect warranty and an amount of Rs. 9,87,26,677/- has been incurred on account of construction and development expenses. You are requested to explain how above expenses are allowable expenses. 3. Furnish ledger account extract of following parties: (a)Nirmal Enterprises (b)Bidkar Associates (c)Shree Sadguru Infratech (d)Yash Enterprises 13 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 1. Furnish ledger account extract of following expenses: (a)Gypsum Plaster (b)Machinery Hiring Charges (c)Painting Work SWAPNIL SHARADRAO PATIL CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE” 12. We find the assessee vide reply dated 23.03.2021 received by the Assessing Officer on 24.03.2021 has given para-wise reply and at para 2 of the reply the assessee had given the following details: “2. EXPLAIN HOW THE EXPENSE INCURRED FOR DEFECT WARRANTY OF RS 2,25,00,000 AND RS.9,87,26,677 FOR CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT IS ALLOWABLE: Your honour has asked the assessee to provide an explanation as to how the expenses incurred for defect warranty of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- and Rs 9,87,26,677/- incurred for construction and development should be allowed as expense. The assessee firm had created a provision of Rs 9,87,26,667/- towards cost to be incurred for completion of construction of building P, Q and R and the adjoining podium. The firm has incurred an expense of Rs.7,43,19,308/- towards the same. The balance provision has been reversed as the said expense is no more required to be incurred. A copy of ledger extract of the ledger, \"Provision for construction expense\", of FY 2019-20 along with audited financial statements is annexed for your honour's reference. (Refer Annexure \"H\") Your honour will appreciate that the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development. The partners of the firm are engaged in the business of real estate development since last 40 years. Based on the past experience and estimates and certificate from engineering, provision of defect warranty of Rs. 2.25.00.000/- is made Also as per section14(3) of THE REAL ESTATE (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 2016 provides the remedy to the allottees in case of any structural defects incurred in the five years from the date of giving the possession then the promoter is liable to rectify the defect at his own cost. Hence the assessee made provision for Defect warranty in accordance with aforesaid mentioned discussion. 14 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 A copy of engineer's certificate is also attached for your honour's reference. (Refer annexure \"H1\") The assessee hereby produces section 14(3) of The Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Act, 2016 for your honour's reference. “143(3) In case any structural defect or any other defect in workmanship, quality or provision of services or any other obligations of the promoter as per the agreement for sale relating to such development is brought to the notice of the promoter within a period of five years by the allottee from the date of handing over possession, it shall be the duty of the promoter to rectify such defects without further charge, within thirty days, and in the event of promoter's failure to rectify such defects within such time the aggrieved allottees shall be entitled to receive appropriate compensation in the manner as provided under this Act.\" 13. Similarly, we find from pages 58 to 59 of the paper book, the assessee had given the details of provisions for construction expenditure totaling to Rs.9,87,95,930/-. We find the Assessing Officer again vide notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act has raised the following queries: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT To GOEL EISHA CAPITALS 6TH FLOOR SAN MAHU COMPLEX.5 BUND GARDEN ROAD OPP POONA CLUB PUNE 411001, Maharashtra India PAN: AAJFG0543R AY 2019-20 Dated: 03/04/2021 DIN & Notice No ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2021- 22/1032173332(1) Notice under sub-section (1) of Section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Sir/Madam/ M/s. In connection with the assessment for the assessment year 2019-20 you are required to 15 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 a) Furnish or cause to be furnished on or before 05/04/2021 at 11:00 AM the accounts and documents specified overleaf. b) Furnish and verified in the prescribed manner under Rule 14 of IT. Rules 1962 the information called for as per annexure and on the points or matters specified therein on or before 05/04/2021 at 11:00 AM. c) The above mentioned evidence/information is to be furnished online electronically in 'E-Proceeding' facility through your account in 'e-filing' website of Income Tax Department, d) Para(s) (a) to (c) are applicable if you have an account in e-filing website of Income Tax Department. Till such an account is created by you, assessment proceedings shall be carried out either through your e-mail account or manually (if e-mail is not available). e) In cases where order has to be passed under section 153A/153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 143(3), assessment proceedings would be conducted manually. Yours faithfully, SWAPNIL SHARADRAO PATIL CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE ANNEXURE 1. From the reply filed by you, it is seen that you have made provision on account of defect warranty of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- for under consideration. But, while going through ITR filed by you for AY 2020-21, it is seen that no expenses have been incurred under this head. Thus, liability booked by you is contingent in nature. In this regard, you are requested to explain why provision should not be added to income. 2. Further, with regard to provision of expenses of Rs.9,87,26,677/- made during the year, it is seen that you have incurred expenses in tune of Rs.7,43,19,308/- in AY 2020-21 while provision of Rs.2,44,07,368/- is added back in AY 2020-21. In view of same, you are requested to state whether provision written back is added to income or not for AY 2020-21. Also, Furnish supporting evidences to prove your claim. Also, furnish ledger account extract of expenses of Rs.7,43,19,308/- SWAPNIL SHARADRAO PATIL CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3) PUNE” 14. We find the assessee vide reply dated 10.04.2021 had given the reply, copy of which is placed at pages 72 to 75 of the paper book. Under these circumstances, 16 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 we have to see as to whether the Ld. PCIT/CIT can invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 on an issue for which specific queries were raised by the Assessing Officer and for which the assessee has given the detailed reply. 15. We find the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom) at para 8 of the order has observed as under: “8. We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal does record the fact that specific queries were made during the Assessment proceedings with regard to details of expenditure claimed under the head “miscellaneous expenses” aggregating to Rs.2.94 crores. The respondent-assessee had responded to the same and on consideration of response of the respondent-assessee, the Assessing Officer held that of an amount of Rs.17.98 lakhs incurred on account of repairs and maintenance out of Rs.2.94 cores is capital expenditure. This itself would be indication of application of mind by the Assessing Officer while passing the impugned order. The fact that the assessment order itself does not contain any discussion with regard to the balance amount of expenditure of Rs.1.76 crores i.e. Rs.2.94 crores less Rs.17.98 lakhs claimed as revenue expenditure would not by itself indicate non application of mind to this issue by the Assessing Officer in view of specific queries made during the assessment proceedings and the Respondent- assessee's response to it. In fact this Court in the case of “Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., [(2008) 301 ITR 407 (Bom.)]” has held that if a query is raised during assessment proceedings and responded to by the Assessee, the mere fact that it is not dealt with in the Assessment Order would not lead to a conclusion that no mind had been applied to it.” 16. We find the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Angre Port Private Ltd. vs. PCIT vide ITA No.1025/PUN/2016 for assessment year 2011-12, order dated 13.10.2020 while setting aside the order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act has observed as under: “10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The only issue that comes up for consideration before us is whether or not the Pr. CIT were justified in exercising the power of revision of the assessment order on the issue of allowability of legal and professional charges of Rs.10 lakhs incurred in connection with the acquisitions of New Ship Lift System. From the 17 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 perusal of para 6 at page no.10 of the Paper Book, it is crystal clear that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had called for the details regarding the true nature of legal and professional expenses of Rs.10 lakhs and the same was explained by the assessee on being satisfied the Assessing Officer had chosen not to make any addition. The fact that the assessment order does not discuss about this item of the expenditure does not mean that the Assessing Officer had not examined the issue. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no enquiry by the Assessing Officer on this issue of allowability of legal and professional charges of Rs.10 lakhs. The Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Aker Powergas Pvt. Ltd. (supra) clearly held that even though the legal expenses are incurred in connection with the capital asset, the same are allowable as revenue expenditure after referring to the decision of the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Bush Boake Allen India Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon‟ble Madras High Court following the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT, 60 ITR 52 held that merely because the expenditure was incurred in connection with the capital assets, the same cannot be treated as capital in nature. It is settled principle of law that once the High Court lays down particular the proposition of law, the same is deemed to be in existence from the inception. Fact would clearly suggest that there was no material on record to hold that the legal and professional expenses of Rs.10 lakhs are not allowable as revenue expenditure. Therefore, the law enunciated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) is clearly applicable to the facts of the case and the Assessing Officer only took one of the possible views and, therefore, the Pr. CIT was not justified in exercising the power of revision. Accordingly, we quash the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act.” 17. We find the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Zahurahmed Abdulrazzak Valjiwala vs. PCIT vide ITA No.76/AHD/2022, order dated 10.11.2022 while setting aside the order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the PCIT has observed as under: “12. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The issue for consideration before us is the scope of enquiry under Explanation 2(a) to section 263 and whether in the instant facts can it be said that the order is passed by Ld. AO is without making inquiries or verification which should have been made, and hence erroneous and thus requiring revision by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act. 12.1 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 18 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 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 High Courts in this regard. 12.2 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 on the ground of inadequate inquiry “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. —— — 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 Incometax 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. 19 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 15. Thus, even the Commissioner conceded the position that the Assessing Officer made the inquiries, elicited replies and thereafter passed the assessment order. The grievance of the Commissioner was that the Assessing Officer should have made further inquires rather than accepting the explanation. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case of „lack of inquiry‟.” 12.3 In Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113) “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 rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. 12.4 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 provision 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 20 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 by way of Explanation 2(a) shall have retrospective or prospective application shall not be relevant. 12.5 Before deciding the issue, it would be useful to refer to some Supreme Court decisions on this subject which would throw useful light on the scope of enquiry under Explanation (a) to section 263 of the Act. 12.6 Recently the Supreme Court of India in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat-2 v. Shreeji Prints (P.) Ltd.[2021] 130 taxmann.com 294 (SC) dismissed SLP filed by the assessee against order passed by High Court holding that where assessee-company had received unsecured loans from two different companies and Assessing Officer had made inquires in detail and accepted genuineness of same, such view of Assessing Officer being a plausible view could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to interest of revenue. The facts of this case were that respondent assessee has filed its return of income showing total income of Rs. 62,55,900/- which was assessed under section 143(3) of the Act, 1961 by an assessment order dated 14th March 2016. The respondent company received unsecured loans from M/s. Georgett Tradecom Pvt Ltd and M/s. Purba Agro Food Pvt. Ltd amounting to Rs. 2.49 Crore and the Assessing Officer allowed these unsecured loans. The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax invoked section 263 of the Act, 1961 for revising the assessed income of the respondent assessee. It was noticed by the PCIT that the unsecured loans obtained by the respondent assessee are shown as investment in the name of the assessee in the share application as well as in the balance sheet of the respective companies. The PCIT passed an order under section 263 of the Act directing the Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act, 1961 on the aspect of unsecured loans shown by the respondent assessee. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court made the following observation while deciding in favour of the assessee: “Thus, the Tribunal has considered in detail the aspect of revisional power to be exercised by the PCIT in the facts of the case and has given a finding of facts that the Assessing Officer has made inquiries in detail and after applying mind, accepted the genuineness of loans received by the respondent assessee from the aforesaid two companies and such view of the Assessing Officer is a plausible view, and therefore, the same cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.” 12.7 The Supreme Court in another 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 revisional order making addition to assessee's income under section 69A in respect of onmoney receipts, however, said order was set aside by Tribunal holding that AO had made detailed enquiries in respect of 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 revisional order under section 263 on ground that Assessing Officer had failed 21 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 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 onmoney transactions and Tribunal thus set aside revisional order passed by Commissioner. The High Court upheld Tribunal's order. The 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 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” 12.8 The Supreme Court in the 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” 12.9 The Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax--8 Mumbai v. Sumatichand Tolamal Gouti [2019] 111 taxmann.com 287 (SC) held that where High Court upheld Tribunal's order holding that AO had made detailed enquiries while allowing assessee's claim for deduction of business expenditure and, thus, revisional order passed by Commissioner was not sustainable, SLP filed against High Court's order was liable to be dismissed. The facts of this case were that in course of assessment, Assessing Officer allowed assessee's claim for deduction of certain expenditure on purchase of CDs on Jain Religion by expending an amount of Rs. 10.4 crores, after due examination. The Commissioner passed revisional order holding that Assessing Officer had not carried out any enquiries as to nature of expenditure being capital or not. The Tribunal, however, allowed assessee's appeal holding that Assessing Officer had carried out detailed enquiries and taken a view which was a plausible view. Accordingly, Tribunal set aside revisional order passed by Commissioner. The High Court upheld order passed by Tribunal. The Supreme Court on consideration of above facts held that SLP filed against High Court's order was to 22 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 liable to be dismissed. The Supreme Court made the following observations, while passing the order: “It is by now well settled that, the Commissioner can exercise revisional powers under Section 263 of the Act only when it is found that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. In the present case, the Tribunal noted the observations of the Assessing Officer in the order of remand to the effect that Jain munis do not advocate spread of religion through use of computers, source of electronic media is usually shunned, very small section of the community uses computer technology for religious purposes as plenty of printed literature is available in the market. All these factors led to the market value of the CDs declining dramatically. It was on account of these reasons, that the assessee had incurred substantial loss arising out of reduction in the value of stock lying at the end of the year. The Tribunal, therefore noted that the Assessing Officer had carried out detailed enquiries and taken a plausible view.” 12.10 We note that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO had issued several notices and had made enquiries on the issue of cash deposited during demonetization period, issue regarding low GP/NP rate, details of sundry creditors, details of service tax deposited etc. in the notices mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, to which the assessee had also replied. So, in our view, this is not a case where no enquiry has been made by the assessee officer during the course of assessment proceedings. It is also not the case of the Pr. CIT that the Ld. AO failed to apply his mind to the issues on hand or he had omitted to make enquiries altogether or had taken a view which was not legally plausible in the instant facts. As held by various Courts, s 263 of the Act does not visualise a case of substitution of the judgment of the Principal CIT for that of the Assessing Officer , who passed the order unless the decision is held to be wholly erroneous. As noted in various judicial precedents highlighted above, the Principal CIT, 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-visit the entire assessment and determine the income himself at a higher figure. Now on the issue that the Ld. AO passed a cryptic order and did not discuss in detail regarding assessee‟s submissions on various queries raised vide the various notices, in our view it is a well settled position of law that if from the assessment records, it is evident that the Ld. AO has made due enquiries in response to which assessee has filed its submissions, then even if the assessment order does not discuss all aspects in detail with regards to claim of the assessee, it cannot be held that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The above proposition has been upheld in the case of CIT v. Reliance Communication 69 taxmann.com 109 (Bombay), Smt. Anupama Bharat Gupta v. ITO in ITA 1685/Ahd/ 2018, Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [1988] 171 ITR 698, CIT v. Mahendra Kumar Bansal [2008] 297 ITR 99 (All.) (para 10) etc. We thus find no error in the order of Ld. AO so as to justify initiation of 263 proceedings by the Ld. Pr. CIT. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus allowed.” 23 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 18. The various other decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed in the paper book also support his case to the proposition that when the Assessing Officer had raised specific queries on an issue and the assessee had given the reply to the same and the Assessing Officer, after considering the reply of the assessee, has passed the order u/s 143(3), the same cannot be set aside by the Ld. PCIT by invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act since it is not a case of lack of enquiry but may be inadequate enquiry. Since the Assessing Officer in the instant case has raised the specific queries regarding the provision for expenses and the assessee had replied to the same and the Assessing Officer after considering the reply of the assessee has accepted the submissions made by the assessee, therefore, it is not a case of lack of enquiry and therefore, respectfully following the decisions cited (supra), we hold that it is not a fit case for invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Ld. PCIT and allow the grounds raised by the assessee. 19. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 7th April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASHTA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 7th April, 2025 GCVSR 24 ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. DR, ITAT, „A‟ Bench, Pune गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 04.04.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 07.04.2025 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order "