SHRIMATI SANDEP KAUR SIDHU, BATHINDA V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

ITA 290/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2792 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Prejudicial to interest; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 48; 13; 263

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . . /.I.T.A NO.290/ASR/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SMT. SANDEEP KAUR SIDHU PROP. M/S SAILVARIA OILS, BYE-PASS ROAD, RAMPURA PHUL, BHATINDA VS. THE PR. CIT, C.R. BUILDING, BHATINDA. PAN NO. ARJPK7620G APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY SH. P.N. ARORA, ADV. /REVENUE BY SH. SANJAY DHARIWAL, CIT DR ' ' ' ' / DATE OF HEARING: 17.09.2021 %' %' %' %' /PRONOUNCEMENT ON 14.10.2021 /O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. 1. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IN SHORT PCIT) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 2 1. THE LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, B ATHINDA ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW IN CANCELLING THE ORDER OF T HE AO PASSED U/S 143(3) DATED 27.11.2015, BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, WI THOUT PROVIDING ANY PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 2. THAT THE LD. PR. CIT, BATHINDA ERRED ON FACTS AN D LAW IN ASSUMING THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT, 19 61 TO PASS AN ORDER CANCELLING THE ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 27.11.2015 OF THE AO BECAUSE ALL THE ISSUES WHICH H AVE BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE AO HAD BEEN EXAMINED IN DETAI L DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ORDER U/S 143(3) HAD BEEN PASSED BY THE AO AFTER DU E APPLICATION OF MIND. 3. THAT THE LD. PR. CIT, BATHINDA ERRED ON FACTS AN D LAW IN CANCELLING THE ORDER OF THE AO IN COMPLETE VIOLATIO N OF POWERS VESTED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BECAUSE THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE B EFORE THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA HAS BEEN REJECTED WITHOUT REBUTTING THE SAME. HENCE, THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F THE REVENUE. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEAR D OR DISPOSED OFF. 3 2. THE PCIT IN ORDER HAD RAISED THREE ISSUES IN THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2018, HOWEVER, WHILE PASSING THE ORDER, THE P CIT HAS NOT MADE ANY RECOMMENDATION IN RESPECT TO THE FIRST AND THIRD ISSUE. THE ISSUE NO. 2 IN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE PROVIDES AS UN DER: - (II) THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAD DEVISED A MODUS OPERANDI TO INTRODUCE HER INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED S OURCES IN THE NAME OF ANGREJ SINGH, AMRIK SINGH, BUTA SING H GIDDER, HARJINDER SINGH NATHPURA, PRITPAL SINGH. T HE ASSESSEE INTRODUCED CASH IN THE NAME OF THESE PARTI ES AS AND WHEN REQUIRED OR CASH WAS SHORT IN BUSINESS OPERATIONS. THE ASSESSEE SHOWN THESE PERSONS AS MEDIATOR FOR COLLECTING CASH FROM VARIOUS PERSONS A ND IN THIS WAY THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE SHOWN IN THE NAME OF THE SE PERSONS DETAILED BELOW: - ANGREJ SINGH RS. 8,25,081/- AMRIK SINGH RS. 15,44,680/- BUTA SINGH GIDDER RS. 27,36,624/- HARJINDER SINGH NATHPURA RS. 54,66,911/- PRITPAL SINGH RS. 54,71,356/- AO DID NOT MAKE ANY INQUIRY TO ASCERTAIN GENUINENES S OF THESE PERSONS NOR WHETHER THEY WERE FILING ANY RETU RN OF INCOME OR WERE DOING SUCH WORK. 4 3. IN RESPECT OF ISSUE NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBM ITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING ITS BOOKS OF ACCO UNT, BILLS AND EXPENDITURE VOUCHERS ALONGWITH STOCK REGISTERS ETC. ON DAY TO DAY BASIS AND SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE DULY AUDITED B Y THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS. THE ASSESSEE HAD DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN IN RESPECT TO THE QUESTION NO. 3 AND 12 TO THE FOLLOWI NG EFFECT: - 3. YOU HAVE SHOWN UNSECURED LOAN AT RS. 15,93,855/-. COPIES OF ACCOUNTS OF UNSECURED LOANS AND EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE NEW CREDITS IN THE FORM OF IDENTITY OF TH E LENDER SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TION OF LOAN. INTIMATE PAN OF THE LENDER AND IF THEY AR E ASSESSED TO TAX, FILE COPIES OF RETURN FILED BY THE M FOR THE AY 2012-13 AND 2013-14 BANK STATEMENT HIGHLIGHTING THE LOAN TRANSACTION. 12. YOU HAVE SHOWN S. DEBTORS AT RS. 91,64,171/-. PLEASE PRODUCE THE COPIES OF THE ACCOUNT AND DETAIL ADDRESS OF THESE PERSONS. DETAIL OF SUNDRY DEBTORS FROM WHOM NO INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED AND REASONS FOR N OT CHARGING ANY INTEREST. 5 4. THE REPLY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE AO AN D ALONG WITH REPLY THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PRODUCED THE CONFIRMATI ON OF ACCOUNTS FROM THE PERSONS NAMELY BUTA SINGH GIDDER, ANGREJ S INGH, AMRIK SINGH, PRITPAL SINGH AND HARJINDER SINGH NATHPURA. AFTER RECEIVING THE REPLY AND THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE AFORESAID P ERSONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION AND ACC EPTED THE TRANSACTIONS. 5. THE LD. AR DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENT HAD ALS O SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING THE TRANSACTION WITH T HESE PERSONS IN THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS AND ALSO IN THE SUBSE QUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR WHICH HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTI ON TO THE RECORD AND SHOWN TO US , FOR THE EARLIER YEAR AND SUBSEQU ENT YEAR THAT THE TRANSACTIONS FROM THESE PERSONS WERE NOT DOUBTED BY THE AUTHORITY BELOW. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE GENUINENESS, CREDIT WORTHINESS AND IDENTITY OF THES E CREDITORS WERE ACCEPTED IN THE EARLIER AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT Y EAR, THEN THE GENUINENESS CANNOT BE DOUBTED BY THE PCIT IN THE RE VISION OR BY THE AO IN THE CURRENT AY. 6 5.1 FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT TH E PCIT IN HIS ORDER IN PARAGRAPH 6.2 HAD MENTIONED THAT THE VEHICLE NUM BER MENTIONED IN RESPECT OF ANGREJ SINGH WAS PERTINENT TO TWO WHE ELER SCOOTER AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED, BY THE AO W AS HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AS NO INDEPENDENT VERIFICATIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO GENUINENESS OF TH E TRANSACTION. 5.2 IN THIS REGARD THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT T HE PCIT WAS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO ISSUE A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ASKE D THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTION AND THEREAFTER ONLY THE ADVERSE INFERENCE COULD HAVE BEEN DRAWN BY THE PCIT. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PREJUDICIAL AND ERRONEOUS IN NATURE AS NO VERIFICATION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS HE HAD MERELY KEPT ON RECORD THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND HAS NOT MADE AN Y INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION. 7 7. THE LD. DR, RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAWAHAR BHATTACHARJEE [2012] 24 TAXMANN.COM 215 (GAUHATI) AND OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO JAWAHAR BH ATTACHARJEE PARA 23 TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT: - 23. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT DAGA ENTRADE P. LTD. (SUPRA) LAYS DOWN CORRECT LAW AND THE SAME IS NOT I N CONFLICT WITH THE EARLIER ORDER OF THIS COURT IN RA JENDRA SINGH (SUPRA). JURISDICTION U/S 263 CAN BE EXERCIS ED WHENEVER IT IS FOUND THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT W AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. CASES OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON WRONG ASSUMPTIO N OF FACTS, ON INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW, WITHOUT DUE APPLICATION OF MIND OR WITHOUT FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE NOT BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 8 7.1 P.V. SREENIJIN VS. CIT [2014] 47 TAXMANN.COM 61 (KERALA) PARA 19 TO 20 TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT: 9 7.2 PARA 29 IN THE CASE OF RAJMANDIR ESTATES (P) LTD. VS. PCIT [2016] 70 TAXMANN.COM 124 (CALCUTTA) TO THE FOLLOWI NG EFFECT: 10 7.3 THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN PA RA 21 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AMITABH BACHCHAN TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT: - 21. THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT SO LONG AS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A POSSIBLE VIEW THE SAM E OUGHT NOT TO BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE COMMISSIONER U/S 263 O F THE ACT MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS ANOTHER POSSIBLE VIEW OF THE MATTER. PERMITTING EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL POWER IN A SITUATION WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE WOULD REALLY AMOUNT TO CONFERRING SOME KIND OF AN APPELLATE POWER IN THE R EVISIONAL AUTHORITY. THIS IS A COURSE OF ACTION THAT MUST BE DESISTED FROM. HOWEVER, THE ABOVE IS NOT THE SITUATION IN T HE PRESENT CASE IN VIEW OF THE REASONS STATED BY THE LD. CIT O N THE BASIS OF WHICH THE SAID AUTHORITY FELT THAT THE MATTER NE EDED FURTHER INVESTIGATION, A VIEW WITH WHICH WE WHOLLY AGREE. MAKING A CLAIM WHICH WOULD PRIMA FACIE DISCLOSE THAT THE EXP ENSES IN RESPECT OF WHICH DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED HAS BEE N INCURRED AND THEREAFTER ABANDONING/WITHDRAWING THE SAME GIVES RISE TO THE NECESSITY OF FURTHER ENQUIRY IN T HE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 69-C OF THE ACT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SIMPLY DROPPED ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLA IM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. WE, THEREFORE, ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT WAS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN COMING TO HIS CONCLU SIONS INSOFAR AS THE ISSUE NO. (III) IS CONCERNED AND IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THAT BASIS. THE LD. TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS T HE HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, OUGHT NOT TO HAVE INTERFERED WITH THE SAID CONCLUSION. 11 8. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DR THAT THE PCI T ON HIS OWN HAD MADE VERIFICATION AND THEREAFTER CAME TO THE CO NCLUSION THAT THE VEHICLE NUMBER MENTIONED IN THE LEDGER AT PAGE 98 M ORE PARTICULARLY PB03T2656 IS OF TWO WHEELER AND THEREFORE PCIT WAS RIGHT IN IT DOUBTS THE VERY BASIS OF SHOWING THE CREDIT IN THE ACCOUNT OF ANGREJ SINGH AND HARJINDER SINGH NATHPURA. 9. IN REBUTTAL, THE LD. AR, HAD RELIED UPON THE FOL LOWING DECISIONS: 1. SMT. HARISHITA CHORDIA VS. ITO [2008] 298 ITR 34 9 (RAJASTHAN) 2. DUSHIANT KUMAR VS. ITO, ITA NO. 468/ASR/2014 3. ITO VS. REKHAA UPPAL, ITA NO. 369(ASR)/2009 4. ITO VS. SANDEEP SINGH UPPAL, ITA NO. 327(ASR)/2010 5. AMBEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS. PR. CIT ITA NO. 208(ASR)/2017 6. HARI IRON TRADING CO. VS. CIT [2003] 131 TAXMAN 535 (PUNJAB & HARYANA) 7. D.G. HOUSING PROJECTS LTD. VS. ITO [2012] 20 TAXMANN.COM 587 (DELHI) 8. PCIT VS. DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS (P) LTD. [2 018] 99 TAXMANN.COM 382 (DEL.) 9. M/S AAKASH GANGA PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS VS. PCIT, ITA NO. 164/CTK/2019 10. NARAIN SINGLA VS. PCIT [2015] 62 TAXMANN.COM 25 5 (CHANDIGARH-TRIB.) 11. NARAYAN TATU RANE VS. ITO [2016] 70 TAXMANN.COM 227 (MUMBAI-TRIB.) 12. M/S AMIRA PURE FOODS PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT, ITA NO . 3205/DEL/2017 13. CIT VS. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. [2011] 332 ITR 0167 14. CIT VS. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA [2010] 194 TAXMAN 504 (DELHI) 15. SH. DHARAMPAL CONTRACTOR, VILL. DANEWALA ITA NO . 12 219 & 672 (ASR)/2015 16. MR. VIKRANT MEHRA M/S GEETU TRADERS VS. ITO, IT A NO. 67 & 68(ASR)/2012 17. CIT VS. INDO GERMAN FAB ITA NO. 248 OF 2012 (P&H) 18. CIT VS. FINE JEWELLERY (INDIA) LTD. [2015] 55 TAXMANN.COM 514 (BOMBAY) 19. CIT VS. GABRIEL INDIA LTD. [1993] 71 TAXMAN 585 (BOM.) 20. CIT VS. ARIVIND JEWELLERS (2003) 259 ITR 0502 ( DEL) 21. CIT VS. MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO. LTD. [2019 ] 102 TAXMANN.COM 48 (BOMBAY) 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, QUESTIONNAIRE, COPY OF ACCOUNT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHE THER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS AND P REJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IT IS ESSENTIAL TO FIND OU T WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE ASSESSM ENT HAS MADE INQUIRIES AND APPLY HIS MIND ON THE MATERIAL AVAILA BLE ON RECORD/ COLLECTED BY HIM / RECEIVED BY HIM OR NOT. AS POI NTED OUT BY THE LD. AR DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD ISSUED THE QUESTIONNAIRE ON 22.07.2015 TO WHICH THE REPLY WAS ALSO RECEIVED BY THE AO. FURTHER, THE PERUSAL OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING THE PET ROL PUMP AND THE FALL IN GP WAS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARAGRAPH 2.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD ALSO 13 EXAMINED THE REPLIES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPO NSE TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND THEREAFTER NO ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT TO CASH CREDITORS. WE FOUND THAT THE LD. PCIT IN PARAGRAPH 6.1 HAS MENTIONED THAT THE COPIES OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE PARTIES WERE FURNISHED. HOWEVER, HE HAS CO NCLUDED THAT MERELY FURNISHING THE COPIES OF THE ACCOUNT DOES NO T MEAN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED VARIOUS ASPECTS INVO LVED IN THE MATTER. FURTHER, THE PCIT IN PARAGRAPH 6.1 HAS MEN TIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT AND P AN. HOWEVER, THE PCIT HAD CONCLUDED, THAT MERELY KEEPING ON RECO RD THE SAID DOCUMENTS BY THE AO DO NOT ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORT HINESS OF THE PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION OF THE A CCOUNT. THE PCIT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT NO INDEPENDENT INQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ONCE THE NAME, BANK ACCOUNT, CONFIRMATION AND PAN CARD ARE AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN PURSUANT TO THE QUESTIONN AIRE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT AO D ID NOT MADE NO INQUIRY OR ADEQUATE INQUIRY. AT THE BEST, IT CAN B E ALLEGED (AS PER PCIT) NO INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION WAS CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPI NION, THERE WAS NO SETTLED YARDSTICK FOR CARRYING OUT THE INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OR ESTABLISHED GUIDELINES TO CONDUCT VERIFICATION, AS IT DEPEND UPON FACTS 14 OF EACH CASE. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS, MERELY BECAUSE THE VERIFICATI ON WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN A MANNER WHICH WAS NOT LI KED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIT. THERE ARE MULTIPLE WAYS OF VERIFICATION OF THE TRANSACTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASCERTAINING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TR ANSACTION, MERELY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DONE THE VERIFICATION IN A PARTICULAR MANNER DOES NOT VITIATE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE I NQUIRY IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON HIS SUBJECTI VE SATISFACTION WHICH CAN BE DERIVED ON THE BASIS OF THE PREVIOUS A ND FUTURE CONDUCT OF THE SAME PARTIES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ONCE THE SAME PARTIES WERE DOING THE BUSINESS WITH THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS, IN THAT SITUATION THE GENUINE NESS OF THE TRANSACTION CANNOT BE DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHEN ALL THE DETAILS ARE AVAIL ABLE WITH HI FOR ALL THESE YEARS . MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN IT WAS NOT DOU BTED IN THE EARLIER YEAR OR IN OTHER WORDS IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE P ARTIES EITHER BECOME NON-EXISTENCE OR WERE NOT HAVING CREDITWORTHINESS. IN OUR VIEW, ADEQUATE INQUIRIES AS REQUIRED UNDER LAW WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. MERELY ELABORATE DETAILED ORDER DISCUSSING THE EVIDENCE AND RECORD HAS NOT BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WILL NOT BE A GROUND TO DECLARE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ERRONEOUS. 15 10.1 FURTHER, WE WILL ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE PCIT IN PARAGRAPH 6.2, WAS AGAINST THE SETTLED CANNONS OF LAW. AS THE PCIT WHILE ARRIVING AT THE FINDING AND PARAG RAPH 6.2, AT ON HIS OWN COLLECTED THE EVIDENCE AT THE BACK OF THE ASSES SEE AND FROM THE WEBSITE OF MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAY A ND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE VEHICLE NO. PB03T2656 IS A TWO WHEELER. NO SUCH DOCUMENT/S WAS/WERE ENCLOSED WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PCIT AS AN ANNEXURE TO THE ORDER TO GIVE CREDENCE TO THE FI NDING OF THE LD. PCIT. 10.2 FURTHER, WE ARE ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT THE P CIT WAS REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE OF ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS AND P REJUDICIAL ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 263 . THE RECORD HAS BEEN DEFINED U/S 263 AS UNDER: - 263. (1) THE COMMISSIONER MAY CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT, AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE 2 ASSESSING] OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, HE, MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER MAKING OR C AUSING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY, PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING AN ORDER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSES SMENT, 16 OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. 11. FROM THE BARE READING OF THE DEFINITION RECORD , IT IS CLEAR THAT ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THI S ACT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY THE PCIT SHALL BE THE RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE SEARCH CONDUCTED BY THE PCI T/ DOCUMENTS COLLECTED FROM THE WEBSITE OF MINISTRY OF ROAD TRAN SPORT AND HIGHWAY WAS NOT FORMING PART OF THE RECORD EITHER OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER OR OF THE PCIT AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION AND HENCE THE S AME CAN NOT FORM BASIS OF RECORDING THE FINDING THAT THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO INTEREST OF REVENUE. 11.1 EVEN ACCORDING TO PCIT THE SAME WAS SUBSEQUENT LY SEARCHED AND PROCURED BY THE OFFICE OF THE PCIT/PCIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT VEHICLE WAS NOT A CAR OR FOUR-WHEELER BUT WAS ONLY A TWO-WHEELER. 12. IT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL J USTICE THAT AS AND WHEN ANY DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE RELIED UPON BY ANY O F THE JUDICIAL/QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY INCLUDING THE CIT (A)/PCIT/ASSESSING OFFICER THEN IT IS MANDATORY FOR SUCH AUTHORITY TO CONFRONT THE SAID DOCUMENT TO THE AFFECTED PARTY AND THE AFFECTED PA RTY WAS REQUIRED TO 17 THE REPLY IT BY WAY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OR WAS AS KED TO EXPLAIN ITS POSITION IN RESPECT TO THE SAID DOCUMENT . 12.1 IF THE NEEDFUL IS NOT DONE EITHER BY CONFRONTI NG TO THE ASSESSEE OR PUT IT TO SHOW CAUSE TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE PCIT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THEN THE SAID DOCUMENT CANNOT BE FORMED BASIS FOR ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE E ORDER PASSED WAS ERRONEOU S AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO MAKE THE NECESSARY VERI FICATION OR INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF THE RECORD. IN CONSIDER ED OPINION, THE RELIANCE BY THE PCIT ON THE DOCUMENT COLLECTED AT T HE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE, GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND THEREF ORE FOR THIS GROUND ALSO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PCIT, IS REQUIRED TO B E STRUCK DOWN. 12.2 EXAMINING THE ORDER OF THE PCIT FROM ANY ANGLE , WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PCIT HAS TRANSGRESSED THE LIMITS O F THE CONTOURS PROVIDED BY THE ACT AND HAD WRONGLY CAME TO THE CON CLUSION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE BEST COURSE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN FOR THE PCIT WAS TO CO NDUCT THE INQUIRY HIMSELF AT IT HIS OWN END BY EXAMINING THE RECORD AFTER ISSUING THE NOTICES TO THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AND BRING A FIN DING OF FACT ON RECORD THAT EITHER THE SAID PERSONS ARE NON-EXISTEN CE OR WERE LACKING CREDITWORTHINESS OR THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT GENUI NE. IN ANY CASE 18 NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE BY THE PCIT EXCEPT BY EXPANDI NG THE SCOPE INQUIRY BY SEARCHING ON HIS OWN BY BRINGING ON RECO RD THE EVIDENCE FROM THE MINISTRY OF ROAD AND TRANSPORT HIGHWAY AUT HORITY AND CONCLUDING THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT GENUINE. T HE SAME IS NO PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE P CIT IS REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. 13.1 NOW COMING TO THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR WERE ON THE IR OWN FACTS AND ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE. THE CONTENTION OF T HE LD. DR THAT MORE VERIFICATION WAS REQUIRED TO BE DONE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, IS NOT CORRECT AS IN OUR VIEW SUFFICIENT INQUIRIES WERE MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY EXAMINING THE RECORD PRODUCED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND ONCE THE SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS WERE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, IN RESPECT OF THE SAM E PERSONS, THEN THERE IS NO REASON TO EXAMINE THE SAME TRANSACTIONS AGAIN OR PERSONS AGAIN. FOR THE ABOVE SAID PURPOSES, WE ARE RELYING UPON TH E JUDGMENT OF THE HONORABLE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF L EADER VALVES[2006] 285 ITR 435 (PUNJ. & HAR.). 19 14. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY S UBSTANCE IN THE ORDER OF THE PCIT. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS QUASHE D. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/10/2021 SD/- SD/- (DR.MITHA LAL MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER DATED: * KAVITA ARORA, SR. P.S. COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) PR. CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT: AMRITSAR BENCHES, AMRITS AR