AI Insights
The case involves M/s. Vision Infinity Limited, which appealed against the revision-order passed by the PCIT, Bhopal, under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The revision was based on an assessment that the original assessment-order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue concerning undisclosed income of Rs. 4.90 crore surrendered during a survey. The Tribunal examined whether the revision was justified, considering the procedural and substantive aspects of the original assessment and the subsequent revision.
Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 130565 (ITAT-INDORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
5 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
11-07-2023
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
18-04-2023
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
14-05-2018
Judgement Text
Page 1 of 24 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, इंदौरÛयायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 467/Ind/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s.Vision Infinity Limited, 78, Jaora Compound, Indore बनाम/ Vs. PCIT-2, Bhopal (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) PAN: AABCV8498B Assessee by Ms.Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, CA & ARs Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 19.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement 12.07.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by revision-order dated 28.02.2018 passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bhopal [“Ld. PCIT”] u/s 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated12.02.2016passed by learned ACIT-3(1), Bhopal [“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2013-14, the assessee has filed this appeal. 2. Originally the assessee filed certain grounds in Form No. 36; subsequently filed additional grounds on 29.01.2019; lastly once again filed modified grounds on 14.01.2021 with a copy acknowledged by the office of Ld. DR. When we confronted Ld. DR qua the grounds, he did not advance any objection. Hence, with the congruence of both sides, the last grounds M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 2 of 24 filed on 14.01.2021, re-produced hereunder, are taken for adjudication: M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 3 of 24 M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 4 of 24 3. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. 4. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of commercial coaching, software development and shares trading. The return of relevant AY 2013-14 under consideration was filed on 01.10.2013 at a total income of Rs. 75,62,480/- which was subjected to scrutiny-assessment through notices u/s 143(2)/142(1). Finally, the AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) vide order dated 12.02.2016 at a total income of Rs. 82,75,869/- after making certain disallowances. Subsequently,Ld. PCIT examined the record of assessment-proceeding and viewed that the assessment-order passed by AO is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue which attracts revisionary-jurisdiction u/s 263. Accordingly, Ld. PCIT issued a show-cause notice dated 30.01.2018 which is re-produced below for a ready reference: M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 5 of 24 M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 6 of 24 M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 7 of 24 M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 8 of 24 5. By the aforesaid show-cause notice, the assessee was asked to explain as to why the assessment-order may not be revised. In response thereto, the assessee made a detailed submission vide letter Reply dated 12.02.2018 and 19.02.2018 which is re-produced by Ld. PCIT in Para No. 3 of revision-order. 6. However, Ld. PCIT was not impressed by submissions of assessee. Therefore, he passed revision-order as under: “4. I have gone through the assessment records and the submissions made by the assesse. I am of the considered view that the assessment in this case was finalized without ascertaining in a reliable manner, the facts relating to the above-mentioned undisclosed income of Rs. 4.9 crore. The assessee’s contentions quoted above, are not acceptable as the AO failed to conduct due and proper inquiries into the facts that the assessee had surrendered the M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 9 of 24 M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 10 of 24 M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 11 of 24 7. Aggrieved by such revision-order, the assessee has filed this appeal.By means of various grounds raised in present appeal, as already re-produced in the beginning, the appellant-assessee basically requires us to adjudicate whether or not the revision-order passed by Ld. PCIT u/s 263 is valid in the eyes of law? 8. On perusal of revision-order, we find that the PCIT has made revision of assessment solely for the reason that the assessee did not offer the income of Rs. 4.90 crore as surrendered in the statement of Shri Prakash Singh, director of assessee. Therefore, at first, we would like to re-produce below the impugned statement (copy filed by Ld. AR at Page No. 23 to 25 of Paper-Book dated 19.01.2021) which are the very basis of revisionary action taken by Ld. PCIT and would be relevant in subsequent discussions: M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 12 of 24 -25- M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 13 of 24 M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 14 of 24 9. Referring to Ground No. 9, Ld. AR raised an initial objection that the PCIT has invoked Explanation 2 to Section 263 and on that basis termed the assessment-order as erroneous which is totally illegal for the simple reason that the said Explanation was introduced through Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and it is judicially held to be applicable prospectively; thus not applicable to AY 2013-14 under consideration. Therefore, Ld. AR contends strongly that the present revision-order passed on the basis of said Explanation which was not applicable, is patently illegal. Though we agree that the present case involves AY 2013-14 and the Explanation 2 to section 263 was not applicable to said year as per certain judicial rulings. But irrespective of the said Explanation, we can test whether the assessment- order passed by AO was erroneous-cum-prejudicial to the interest of revenue or not and if it was, then revision is sustainable and if not, then revision would not be sustainable. Needless to mention that even in absence of said Explanation, the function of AO is not only of adjudicating authority but also of investigator. Therefore, we are not persuaded to agree with the simpliciter argument of Ld. AR that the revision-order is straightforward illegal. Such pleading of Ld. AR is hereby rejected. 10. Ld. AR submitted that the PCIT has passed revision-order on the sole premise that the AO has not examined the surrender of Rs. 4.90 crore made in the statement of Shri Prakash Singh, Managing Director of assessee, during survey. In this regard, before embarking upon various components of surrender of Rs. 4.90 Crore, Ld. AR made some initial remarkable submissions which would like to record. Firstly, it is submitted that the survey was started at 4 P.M. on 29.10.2014 and ended at about 9 am on 30.10.2014. The statements of Shri Prakash Singh, Managing Director, were recorded without mentioning time under mental pressure and duress and this fact was also brought to the notice of Ld. PCIT vide letter dated 12.02.2018 in response to notice u/s 263. Ld. AR submitted that the survey was conducted on 29.10.2014 falling within previous year 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16 but in the statements recorded, initially the surrender has M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 15 of 24 been obtained for AY 2013-14 but in the closing paragraph, the same was obtained for AY 2015-16. Secondly,it is submitted that the AO passing the assessment-order, Mr. Aadesh Rai, was a part of survey-team and he himself recorded the impugned statement of Shri Prakash Singh during survey on 29.10.2014 (re-produced earlier in Para No. 8 of this order) which is very much evident from seal and signature of Mr. Aadesh Rai on last page of statement. Therefore, the AO was very much aware of the surrender made by assessee during survey and has cautiously not made any addition out of surrendered income at the time of completing assessment. Thirdly, it is also submitted that in several rulings it has been vehemently held that no addition can be made on the basis of mere surrender during survey unless the same is corroborated by tangible and positive material. Since in the present case there was no tangible, positive or corroborative material to support surrender, the AO has righlty refrained from making any addition while completing assessment. 11. Having narrated so, Ld. AR made a lengthy discussion on various components of surrender of Rs. 4.90 crore item by item. Ld. DR too made his vehement submissions to defend the contentions of Ld. AR. We sum up the arguments and contentions of both sides: (i) to (iii) Regarding surrender out of Advertisement expenditure(Rs. 70,00,000), Distribution expenditure (Rs. 20,00,000), Salary & Wages (Rs. 40,00,000): Ld. AR submitted that during assessment-proceeding, the AO issued a detailed query-letter dated 08.06.2015 u/s 142(1) containing as many as 25 queries on various points related to the assessment of assessee, copy placed at Page No. 86 to 89 of Paper-Book dated 14.05.2019. Ld. AR invited our attention to following specific queries raised by AO pertaining to expenses: (a) In Point No. (a), the AO required the assessee to produce M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 16 of 24 books of account and documents. (b) In Point No. 5(a), the AO required the assessee to furnish the details of all expenses and TDS therefrom in a particular format. (c) In Point No. 16, the AO required the assessee to give a detailed comparative chart of all expenses individually above Rs. 1,00,000/- for AY 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012- 13. (d) In Point No. 23, the AO required the assessee to give the details of all cash payments more than 20,000/- in a particular format. (e) At the end of notice, under the heading “N.B”, the AO gave certain specific instructions to assessee, namely “Come with all bills and vouchers of expenses to verify the genuineness of expenditure claimed. Bring books of account for verification. It is important to note that no copy of account, apart from those asked for, should be attached in response to above questionnaire. The information should be arranged point-wise as in the questionnaire and if any point is unanswered or is not applicable then it should be mentioned in the respective point alongwith reasons. The ordering of answers should be same as the questionnaire.” Ld. AR submitted that the assessee produced books of account and filed written submission which the AO considered and examined (Para No. 2 of assessment-order).Further, the AO has categorically noted that he verified P&L A/c; perused the bills and vouchers; and also confronted the representatives of assessee Shri Ashok Chawla and Shri Ambrish Shukla with the discrepancy; and thereafter made a disallowance of 10% out of M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 17 of 24 certain expenses (Para No. 4 of assessment-order). Thus, Ld. AR contended, it is totally wrong and baseless to say that the AO has not examined expenses. Without prejudice, Ld. AR also carried us to the copy of impugned statement already re-produced by us in earlier paragraph. Referring to last para of statement, Ld. AR demonstrated that Shri Prakash Singh has offered to surrender the income relating to Point No. 1 to 3 of his statement (out of which Point No. 2 and 3 related to surrender on two accounts, namely Advertisement Expenses and Distribution Expenses) in AY 2015-16 and not in AY 2013-14. This undisputed fact arising from the last para of statement is also admitted by Ld. PCIT in Point No. 4 of show-cause notice but then the PCIT goes on observing that the assessee did not revise return for AY 2013-14 or 2015-16and did not pay tax on surrendered income. Ld. AR strongly contended that when thesole basis of revision done by PCIT is the surrender made by assessee, then the revision could be of AY 2015-16 and not of AY 2013-14. Therefore, on this very count, the PCIT has wrongly made revision of AY 2013-14qua advertisement expenses and distribution expenses. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that the impugned query-letter dated 08.06.2015 issued by AO is a general query-letter in which the AO has raised routine queries relating to assessment but the AO has not raised any specific query qua the survey. He submitted that the AO has nowhere discussed the points of survey in assessment-order which clearly shows that the AO has not examined the expenses out of which surrender was made. Ld. DR submitted that the assessment-order is cryptic and the AO has mechanically disallowed just 10% of expenses. On the issue of AY 2013-14 or 2015-16, Ld. DRadmitted that in last M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 18 of 24 para of statement Shri Prakash Singh made surrender for AY 2015-16 but contended that in reply to preceding Q.No. 2 to 3 of statement, specific surrender was made for AY 2013-14. Ld. DR submitted that last para is not relevant, the preceding Q.No. 2 to 3 are more specific and relevant. (iv) Regarding surrender of On-money payment for purchase of property (Rs. 1.80 Crore): Ld. AR submitted that the surrender of Rs. 1.80 crore was based on entries on backside of BS-3 / Page No. 47 impounded by survey-team, copy placed at Page No. 60 in the Paper-Book dated 14.05.2019. Ld. AR drew our attention to same and submitted that the said document does not mention any date or year of cash payment but the authorities allege that the cash payment relates to purchase of land at village Barai made through cheque of Rs. 2,58,37,500/- mentioned in the very said document just above the impugned noting of cash-payment. Therefore, during hearing on 19.04.2023, Ld. AR filed a copy of registered sale-deed of purchase of said land at Barai (with an acknowledgement of copy served upon the office of Ld. DR on 17.04.2023) and argued that the said land was purchased for Rs. 2,42,50,000/- in the year 2013-14 relevant to AY 2014-15 and not in AY 2013-14. Ld. AR demonstrated that the deed was executed and registered on 26.08.2013. Ld. AR referred to Page- 1 of the deed and pointed out that prior to execution of registered-deed, the assessee made a registered-agreement for purchase of land on 21.06.2013 with a token payment of Rs. 21,50,000/-. Thus, the deal of land itself was agreed on 21.06.2013. And thereafter all subsequent payments were made on 04.07.2013, 05.07.2013, 13.07.2013, 16.07.2013, 24.07.2013 and 20.08.2013. All these payments have been M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 19 of 24 made through DD / cheque. Thereafter, the assessee incurred a total cost of Rs. 15,87,500/- through cheque on stamps and registration. Thus, the total cost of land amounted to Rs. 2,58,27,500/- which exactly tallies with the noting of cheque- payment made on the seized document and the same is duly recorded in the books of account of assessee, copy of ledger A/c extracted from books of assessee is submitted alongwith copy of registered-deed. With these facts and evidences, Ld. ARsubmitted that when the purchase transaction itself was made in AY 2014-15, how can cash-payment, even if assumed to have been made, relate to AY 2013-14? Ld. AR submitted that the impounded document does not contain any date or year and the PCIT is wrong in assuming the same as related to AY 2013- 14. Therefore, the revision of AY 2013-14 qua this issue is patently wrong and unsustainable. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that the cash payment was made in the financial year 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14 though the registration might have been done in next AY 2014-15. (v) Regarding surrender of Unsecured loans and interest thereon (Rs. 1.80 Crore): Ld. AR submitted that the surrender of Rs. 1.80 crore was based on entries on backside of BS-2 / Page No. 97 impounded by survey-team, copy placed at Page No. 66 in the Paper-Book dated 14.05.2019. Ld. AR drew our attention to same and submitted that the said document does not mention any date or year and this undisputed fact is clearly admitted by PCIT himself in Para No. 5 of the show-cause notice but then the Ld. PCIT goes on observing that in the statement recorded during survey, the same was accepted as transaction related to AY 2013-14. Ld. AR also submitted that the surrender of Rs. 1.80 crore taken M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 20 of 24 from assessee is not even corroborated mathematically by any amount or aggregate of amounts noted in the said document. However, the main entry of Rs. 1.70 crore (noted in the document)is in the name of one Shri Jagdish Thakur. Therefore, during assessment-proceeding, the AO issued summon dated 27.02.2015 u/s 131 to Shri Jagdish Thakur and recorded his statements on 03.03.2015, copy of statement placed at Page No. 78 to 85 of Paper-Book dated 14.05.2019. Ld. AR referred to Q.No. 5 and 15 which are re-produced below: “Ĥ. 5 Èया आपके ɮवारा Þयाज पर ऋण Ǒदया जाता है ॽ यǑद हाँ तो ͩकस दर पर यह ऋण Ĥदान ͩकया जाता है, आपके ɮवारा िजÛहɅ भी ऋण Ĥदान ͩकया गया है उनका पूण[ ͪववरण दे । उ. 5 जी मेरे ɮवारा ͩकसी भी Ĥकार का ऋण Ĥदान नहȣं ͩकया जाता है । Ĥ.15 आपको सवȶ कȧ काय[वाहȣ के दौरान जÞत कȧ गयी डायरȣ को Ǒदखाया जा रहा है िजसमɅ आपके ɮवारा Ĥदान ͩकये गये ऋण Ǿ. 1.7 करोड (loan given by you of Rs. 1.7 Cr. @5.5% per month) का उãलेख है, इस ͪवषय पर आपका Èया कहना है । उ.15 यह ͩक मेरे ɮवारा ऐसी कोई भी राͧश नहȣं दȣ गयी है और ना हȣ इस राͧश के संबंध मɅ मुझे कोई जानकारȣ भी नहȣं है । Referring to same, Ld. AR contended that even in the independent verification done by AO during scrutiny- assessment, Shri Jagdish Thakur has clearly denied having given any loan to assessee. Therefore, the surrender made during survey under mental pressure has no value. Without prejudice, Ld. AR further argued that the allegation of department is that the assessee has taken cash-loan and not M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 21 of 24 given cash-loan. Ld. AR submits that she fails to understand as to how there can be income of assessee if at all there was a cash-loan taken? Ld. AR submitted that at the best it could be an undisclosed income of the given but certainly it cannot be an income of assessee-receiver. Per contra, Ld. DR relied upon the surrender made by Shri Prakash Singh and argued that once he has made surrender, the AO must have made addition. 12. We have considered rival submissions of both sides. After a careful consideration, we find several merits in the submission put forward by Ld. AR. At first, we take note of the fact that the survey was started at 4 P.M. on 29.10.2014 and ended at about 9 am on 30.10.2014 and the statements of Shri Prakash Singh, Managing Director, were recorded without mentioning time. It is also notable that the survey was conducted on 29.10.2014 falling within previous year 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16 but in the statements recorded, initially the surrender is made/obtained for AY 2013-14 but in the closing paragraph, certain components of surrender have been made/ obtained for AY 2015-16. Coupled with this, we also find on perusal of documents, that the AO, Mr. Aadesh Rai, was involved at three stages, (i) firstly he was a part of survey-team and he himself recorded the impugned statement of Shri Prakash Singh, Managing Director, making surrender; (ii) secondly during assessment-proceeding, Mr. Aadesh Rai himself summoned Shri Jagdish Thakur on 03.03.2015 u/s 131 of the act and examined qua the cash-loan of Rs. 1.70 crore alleged to have been taken by assessee which was one component of surrender; and (iii) thirdly, Mr. Aadesh Rai himself was the AO who passed the impugned assessment-order revised by Ld. PCIT. Therefore, the AO, Mr. Aadesh Rai was very much aware of the surrender made by assessee and has also taken step to examine the surrendered income during scrutiny-assessment. At the same time, we also find sufficient weightage in the submission of Ld. AR that no addition could have been M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 22 of 24 made on the basis of mere surrender during survey in absence of any tangible or positive material. Therefore, the AO has rightly refrained from making any addition in assessment-order qua the surrender. 13. We have also looked into the submissions made by learned Representativesof both sides qua the components of surrender and after a careful consideration, we note our analysis as under: (i) Regarding surrender out of Advertisement expenditure (Rs. 70,00,000), Distribution expenditure (Rs. 20,00,000), Salary & Wages (Rs. 40,00,000), we observe that the AO has raised specific queries relating to genuineness of expenses through notice u/s 142(1) and the assessee has filed details/documents and produced the books of account which were duly verified as categorically mentioned by AO in Para No. 2 and 3 of assessment-order. We further observe that after due consideration, the AO has made 10% disallowance of certain expenses. Thus, prima facie there is an investigation done by AO. Even otherwise, we also find that in the last para of statement, Shri Prakash Singh made surrender for AY 2015-16 and not for AY 2013-14. When it is so, the AO is justified in not making any addition on this count in AY 2013-14. Therefore, the revision on this issue cannot be said to be valid. (ii) Regarding surrender of on-money payment of Rs. 1.80 crore, we firstly find that the impounded document does not contain any date or year which is an undisputed fact. Then, we find that the land at village Barai, for which there is allegation of cash-payment of on-money, had been purchased during AY 2014-15 and not during AY 2013-14 which is very much evident from the date of agreement, dates of payment of consideration and date of execution of sale-deed embodied in the registered sale-deed placed on record. Ld. DR could neither prove that the impounded document contained any date of alleged on-money payment not could rebut or contradict the documentary evidences M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 23 of 24 which clearly shows purchase-deal having taken place in AY 2014-15; Ld. DR has simply made an unsubstantiated statement that the on- money must have been paid in AY 2013-14. Faced with such a situation, we do not find any valid basis to justify addition in AY 2013- 14. Therefore, the revision qua this issue is also not valid. (iii) Regarding surrender of Rs. 1.80 crore, we firstly find that no date or year is mentioned in the impound document which is again a fact admitted by PCIT himself. Secondly, we also find that the main entry of Rs. 1.70 crore noted on the document, is in the name of one Shri Jagdish Thakur for which the AO issued summon dated 27.02.2015 u/s 131 to Shri Jagdish Thakur and recorded his statements on 03.03.2015 wherein he has clearly denied having given any cash-loan to assessee. Thirdly, we find merit in the submission of Ld. AR that if at all the assessee has taken cash-loan, how can it be treated as an income of assessee-receiver? Ld. DR could not rebut or contradict these points raised by Ld. AR. Therefore, the revision on this count is also not valid. 14. With regard to the contention raised by Ld. DR that the assessment- order is silent on the impugned surrender, in our considered view the writing of assessment-order is a task of AO and the same is neither controlled nor helped by assessee. In fact, the assessee has no hand or mind in writing the assessment-order. Being so, we are afraid to accept the pleading of Ld. DR that the assessment-order could be said to be erroneous- cum-prejudicial for that reason alone. This view is also fortified by the decision taken by Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai in Reliance Payment Solutions Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT (2022) 136 taxmann.com 277where it was accepted that merely because the Assessing Officer did not write specific reasons for accepting the explanation of the assessee cannot be reason enough to invoke powers under section 263, and non-mentioning of these reasons do M/s Vision Infinity Limited, Bhopal I.T.A.No..467/Ind/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 24 of 24 not render the assessment order "erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue". 15. In view of above discussion and for the reasons stated therein, we are persuaded to hold that the facts of the present case do not warrant application of section 263. Therefore, the revision-order passed by Ld. PCIT is not a valid order. We, thus, quash the revision-order and restore the original assessment-order passed by AO. The assessee succeeds in this appeal. 16. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on12.07.2023. Sd/- sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore Ǒदनांक/Dated :12.07.2023. CPU/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
