M/s Sahu Agro Centre, Ludhiana V. Pr. CIT-3, Ludhiana

ITA 1278/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5249 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH ABROL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJIV KUMAR GARG
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1278/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SAHU AGRO CENTRE, VS. THE PRINCIPAL CIT-3, OPP. PAU GATE NO.1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN FEROZEPUR ROAD, LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. AARFS6225Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SANJIV KUMAR GARG RESPONDENT BY : SH. ASHISH ABROL, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 05.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.02.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2017 OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS PCIT]-3, L UDHIANA AGITATING THE EXERCISE OF REVISION JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS WAS A CASE OF LIMITED SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS EXAMINED AND VERIFIED ABOUT THE TRANSACTIONS, IF ANY, MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE WITH THE 2 PERSONS COVERED U/S 94A OF THE I.T.ACT. CERTAIN QU ERIES WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WERE DULY REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER EXAMINING THE BANK STATEMENTS, ACCOUNTS AND OTHER R ELEVANT DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME. THE LD. PCIT WHILE EXERCISING HIS POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT OBSE RVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED PROPERLY ABOUT T HE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT COMPARED THE INFORMAT ION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THAT, WHICH WAS AVAILABLE IN THE SYSTEM, HE, THEREFORE, ISSUED THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE A SSESSEE IN REPLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH ADVERSE INFORMATIO N IN THE SYSTEM ALSO AND THAT THE PCIT HAS NOT POINTED OUT ABOUT TH E AVAILABILITY OF SUCH INFORMATION EVEN IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. A P ERUSAL OF THE ORDER REVEALS THAT THE PCIT HAS NOT MENTIONED ABOUT ANY S PECIFIC INFORMATION FROM WHICH ANY ADVERSE VIEW CAN BE GATHERED OR ANY BELIEF CAN BE FORMED AS TO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE O N THIS ISSUE. FURTHER, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT LD. PCIT HAS ALSO DISCUSSED CERTAIN OTHER ISSUES WHICH WERE NOT DISCUSSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. COUNSEL IN THIS RESPECT HAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THIS WAS A CASE OF LIMITED SCRUTINY, THE LD. PCIT WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO EXAMINE THOSE ISSUES. EVEN DESPITE THAT , THE ASSESSEE OTHERWISE HAS EXPLAINED TO THE LD. PCIT ABOUT SUCH ISSUES SUCH AS MINOR DIFFERENCE IN SALES, AND AS TO WHY THE ASSESS EE HAD NOT SHOWN SUNDRY DEBTORS. IN OUR VIEW, THE ORDER OF THE LD. PCIT IS TOTALLY BASED ON ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION. NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL HAS BEEN NOTICED BY THE LD. PCIT OR CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE FROM WHICH HE COULD FORM BELIEF TO CONCLUDE THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED 3 ASSESSMENT OR THAT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE 3. IN VIEW OF THIS WE FIND MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE PCIT IS SET ASIDE. THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 05.02.2018 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR