Pankaj Maheshwari, Meerut V. CIT, Meerut

ITA 6725/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4772 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 22-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY VARMA
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 263; 63

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 6725/DEL/2015 A.Y. : 2011-12 PANKAJ MAHESHWARI C-22/1, VAISHALI COLONY, GARH ROAD, MEERUT (PAN: AJQPM8762L) VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHAINSALI, MEERUT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. K. SAMPATH, ADV. & SH. RAJA KUMAR, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. VIJAY VARMA, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2015 PASSED BY THE LD. PR. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX, MEERUT U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT) RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL READ AS UNDER: - 1. THE LD. CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO CONSIDERING IT ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 2 2. THE LD. CIT ACTED UPON ERRONEOUSLY BY INVOKING SECTION 263 AS THE AO MADE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) JUDICIOUSLY AFTER INVESTIGATING THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO DISCREPANCY IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS FOUND BY THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. 3. THE LD. CIT ACTED UPON ERRONEOUSLY BY INVOKING SECTION 263 AS EXPLANATION W.R.T. INVESTMENT IN FLA T AT NOIDA WAS DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE SETTING ASIDE THE CASE UNDER SECTION 263. 4. THE SEVERAL OBSERVATIONS AS MADE AND INFERENCES DRAWN ARE UNTENABLE, INCORRECT, UNWARRANTED. 5. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AN ASSESSM ENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WAS PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE AC T) ON 29.3.2014 BY THE ITO, WARD 2(1), MEERUT AT THE INCO ME OF RS.5,50,380/- AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 3,9 1,490/-, AFTER MAKING ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENS ES DEBITED 3 TO P&L A/C AND LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS TOTALING RS.1,58,890/-. HOWEVER, LD. PR. CIT EXAMINED ON THE BASIS OF DISCREPANCIES FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PRO CEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS. 32,00,000/-, BUT ASSESSEE DID NOT INCLUDE THIS I NCOME IN HIS TOTAL INCOME IN THE RETURN FILED FOR AY 2011-12 REL EVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF SURVEY. THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY AD DITION ON THIS ACCOUNT. BESIDES THIS, IT WAS ALSO NOTICED TH AT THE AO HAS NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 28,95,725/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN A FLAT AT NO IDA. LD. PR. CIT HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE AO WITHOUT PROPER INQUIRY AND WITHOUT APPREC IATION OF CORRECT FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION RENDERING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER PRIMA FACIE AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF REVENUE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 263 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED ON 23.1.2015 TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RE SPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED REPLIES AND THE DETAILS. THEREAFTER, THE PR.CIT OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS RETRACTED FROM HIS EARLIER VOLUNTARY SURRENDER OF I NCOME OF RS. 32 LACS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT MAKING ANY INQUIRY OR VERIFICATION WHEREAS WELL SETTLED LAW TH AT MERE 4 FAILURE TO MAKE INQUIRIES MAKES AN ORDER ERRONEOUS. THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS CONSIDERED AN ORDER OF THE AO IS ERRONEOUS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 263. THE COMMISSIONER HAS CONSIDERED AN ORDER OF THE AO IS E RRONEOUS NOT ONLY IF IT CONTAINS SOME APPARENT ERROR OF REAS ONING OR OF LAW OR OF FACT ON THE FACE OF IT BUT ALSO BECAUSE IT IS A STEREO TYPED ORDER WHICH SIMPLY ACCEPTS WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED IN HIS RETURN AND FAILED TO MAKE ENQUIRIES ARE CALL ED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN THE INCOME SURREN DERED BY THE ASSESSEE INTO CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS NOT INCLU DED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AO HAS ALSO NOT E NQUIRED INTO THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE NOIDA FLAT PROPERLY . THESE OMISSIONS AND MISTAKES ON THE PART OF THE AO RENDER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, THE PR. CIT, MEERUT VIDE HER ORDE R DATED 23.10.2015 PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT HAS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DIRECT THE AO AS UNDER:- I) TO ENHANCE THE ASSESSED INCOME BY THE SURRENDERED INCOME NOT INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN. 5 II) TO AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN NOIDA FLAT AND TAKE THE DECISION ON THE BASIS OF HIS EXPLANATION, FACTS OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW. III) TO INITIATE PENAL ACTION U/S. 271(1) OR UNDER OTHER SECTIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AS PER LAW, AS APPLICABLE. 4. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT P ASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT DATED 23.10.2015, ASSESSEE IS IN APP EAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AO HAS MADE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT JUDICIOUSLY AFTER INVESTIGATING THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO DISCREPANCY IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WA S FOUND BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE FU RTHER STATED THAT THE EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO INVESTM ENT IN FLAT AT NOIDA WAS DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. PR. CIT DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE SETTING ASIDE THE CASE UNDER SEC TION 263 OF THE ACT. DURING THE HEARING BEFORE US, THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 70 IN WHICH HE H AS ATTACHED THE COPY OF NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT DAT ED 15.4.2015; COPY OF REPLY TO NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT DATED 28.4.2015; FURTHER REPLY TO NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT DATED 6 6.5.2015 ALONGWITH CBDT LETTER DATED 18.12.2014; CO PY OF PETITION FILED ON 15.3.2011 RETRACTING; COPY OF SUR VEY ORDER U/S. 131(3) DATED 10.3.2011 AND STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESS EE RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY; COPY OF NOTICE DATED 19 .2.2014; LETTER FILED BEFORE ITO, WARD-2(2), MEERUT ALONGWIT H TRADE TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER; LETTER FILED BEFORE ADDL. CIT, RAN GE-2, MEERUT ALONGWITH COPY OF ITR, COMPUTATION OF INCO ME, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET, COPY OF CASH C REDIT LIMIT OF SBI, MEERUT; AND COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 1 43(3) DATED 29.3.2014 FOR AY 2011-12. COUNSEL OF THE ASS ESSEE SPECIALLY DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NO. 17 TO 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS A NOTICE DATED 19.2.2014 SENT BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE FOR GIVING REPLIES OF SOME OF THE Q UESTIONS AND PAGE NO. 19 & 20 OF THE PB IS THE REPLY DATED 24.2. 2014 FOR THE QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE AO WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THA T THE SURVEY TEAM COULD NOT DETECT THE DIFFERENCE IN STOC K AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED. THE SURVEY TEAM OBSE RVED / DETECTED THE AFORESAID DIFFERENCES IN STOCK PURELY ON ESTIMATION BASIS OR ON STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, HE S UBMITTED THAT AO HAS MADE THE ASSESSMENT JUDICIOUSLY AFTER M AKING ALL THE ENQUIRIES / VERIFICATION, WHICH HAS BEEN REPLIE D VIDE REPLY DATED 24.2.2014 AND ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID REPLY, THE AO HAS MADE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT . DESPITE THAT THE LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX H AS WRONGLY 7 INVOKED SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, WHICH IS NOT SUSTA INABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE QUASH ED. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT, MEERUT AND STATED THAT THE AO HAS NOT TAKE N THE INCOME SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE INTO CONSIDERATI ON WHICH WAS NOT INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF I NCOME WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE FURTHER STATED TH AT AO HAS NOT ENQUIRED INTO THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE N OIDA FLAT PROPERLY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THES E OMISSIONS AND MISTAKES ON THE PART OF THE AO RENDER THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1 961. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, HE STATED THAT LD. PR. CIT HAS RIGHTLY SE T ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AO WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENC E ON OUR PART AND REQUESTED TO UPHOLD THE SAME. IN SUPPORT O F HIS CONTENTION HE FILED A COPY OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF R EVENUE ON PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT AND POSITION OF LAW ON THE ISSUE OF SECTION 263. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESP ECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PR. CIT U/S. 263 O F THE ACT ALONGWITH PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US. 8 7.1 IN THIS CASE AN ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2011-12 WAS PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 ON 29.3.2014 BY THE ITO, WARD 2(1), MEERUT AT INCOM E OF RS.5,50,380/- AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 3,91,49 0/-, AFTER MAKING ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES DEB ITED TO P&L A/C AND LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS TOTALING RS.1,58,890/-. LD. PR. CIT, ON EXAMINATION OF THE C ASE RECORDS, NOTICED THAT THE CASE WAS SELECTED UNDER C OMPULSORY SCRUTINY AS A SURVEY U/S. 133A OF THE I.T. ACT, 196 1 WAS CONDUCTED ON THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 10.3.2011. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT ON THE BASIS OF DISCREPANCIES FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PRO CEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS. 32,00,000/-. BUT ASSESSEE DID NOT INCLUDE THIS INCOME IN HIS TOTAL INCOME IN THE RETURN FILED FOR AY 2011-12 RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF SURVEY. THE AO HAS NOT MADE AN Y ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT. BESIDES, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE AO HAS NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 28, 95,725/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN A FLAT AT NOIDA. THUS, PR. CIT HAS OBSERVED THAT IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THE ABOVE ASSESSM ENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE AO WITHOUT PROPER INQUIRY AND WIT HOUT APPRECIATION OF CORRECT FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION RE NDERING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PRIMA FACIE AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJU DICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTI ON 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED ON 23.1.2015 TO THE A SSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED, THE AR OF THE ASSESS EE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED REPLIES AND THE DETAILS. 7.2 AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ORDER PR. C IT IS TOTALLY 9 ERRED BY INVOKING THE SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AS THE AO MADE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT , 1961 AFTER INVESTIGATING THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO DISCREPANCY IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS FOUND BY THE A O DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TH E LD. PR. CIT ALSO ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION W .R.T. INVESTMENT IN FLAT AT NOIDA, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BE FORE HIM DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE SETTING ASI DE THE CASE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN THE PAPER BOOK THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED THE COPY OF NOTICE U/S. 2 63 OF THE ACT DATED 15.4.2015; COPY OF REPLY TO NOTICE U /S. 263 OF THE ACT DATED 28.4.2015; FURTHER REPLY TO NOTICE U/ S. 263 OF THE ACT DATED 6.5.2015 ALONGWITH CBDT LETTER DATED 18.1 2.2014; COPY OF PETITION FILED ON 15.3.2011 RETRACTING; COP Y OF SURVEY ORDER U/S. 131(3) DATED 10.3.2011 AND STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY; COPY OF NOTICE DATED 19.2.2014; LETTER FILED BEFORE ITO, WARD-2(2), MEER UT ALONGWITH TRADE TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER; LETTER FILED BEFORE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-2, MEERUT ALONGWITH COPY OF ITR, COMPUT ATION OF INCOME, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET, COPY OF CASH CREDIT LIMIT OF SBI, MEERUT; AND COPY OF ASSE SSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 29.3.2014 FOR AY 2011-12. HOWEVE R, WHILE PERUSING THE PAGE NO. 17 & 18 OF THE PB WHICH IS A NOTICE DATED 19.2.2014, WE NOTE THAT AO HAS STATED THAT DU RING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION U/S. 133A OF THE I.T. AC T, 1961 CONDUCTED ON 10.3.2011, STATEMENT ON OATH RECORDED IN YOUR CASE VIDE SL. NO. 12, 13, 14, 15, & 16 IN THE STATE MENT ON OATH QUESTIONS RAISED AND ANSWERS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 10 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN WHETHER HE HAS ACCOUNTED FOR 11 THE FOLLOWING SURRENDER AMOUNT IN FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE FY 2010-11 RELEVANT TOT EH AY 2011-12 WHILE SUBMITTING THE RETURN OF INCOME: (A) ON A/C OF EXCESS STOCK OF RS. 18 LACS. (B) ON A/C OF UNDISCLOSED SALES OF RS. 7 LACS. (C) ON A/C OF DISCREPANCIES FOUND IN THE SALES / PURCHASE BILLS OF RS. 7 LACS AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN ABOUT THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 28 LACS IN PURCHASING OF FLAT AT AMARPALI, NOIDA AND CASE WAS FIXED FOR COMPLIANCE ON 24.2.2014 AT 11.30 AM. MOREOVER, VIDE PAGE NO. 19 & 20 OF THE PB IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE DATED 19.2.2014, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS REPLY DATED 24.2.2014 STATING THEREIN AS UNDER:- THAT ALL THE PURCHASES AND SALES ARE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR THE FY 2010-11 RELEVANT TO A Y 2011-12 AND TRADE TAX ASSESSMENT FOR THE CONCERNED YEAR HAS BEEN COMPLETED INDICATING SALES, PURCHASES AND STOCKS ARE PROPER AS ACCEPTED BY THE TRADE TAX DEPARTMENT. (COPY OF TRADE TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER ENCLOSED). THAT DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE'S STATEMENTS RECORDED AND ANSWERING TO QUESTION NOS 12 & 13 THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY 12 STATED THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO SUCH EXCESS STOCK AND HAD VERY CLEARLY EXPLAINED THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW ACCOUNTS AND ACCOUNTANT HAD BEEN OUT OF STATION AND IT IS EVIDENT FROM ANSWER TO QUESTION NO 15 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN CHEQUE UNDER STRESS AND TENSION AS ALSO BROUGHT TO KIND NOTICE OF THE HONOURABLE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF LNCOME TAX RANGE-2 MEERUT ON 15.03.2011 ITSELF. THAT SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN FLAT AT NOIDA ARE AS BELOW: COST OF FLAT RS.28,95,725 PAYMENT ON AGREEMENT RS. 22,56,650 UPTO NOW BALANCE ON POSSESSION RS. 6,39,075 SOURCE: DATE AMOUNT PAYER PARTICULARS 19.2.2010 200000 PANKAJ MAHESHWARI OUT OF CAPITAL INVESTED IN GANESH TRADERS. 29.9.2010 1056650 PANKAJ MAHESHWARI LOUT OF LOAN FROM HIS NEPHEW NITIN 13 MAHESHWARI WHO IS ASSESSED TO TAX AT PAN: AJWPM8395D 29.9.2010 1000000 SMT. PRIYANKA MAHESHWARI PARTLY OUT OF HER CAPITAL AND PARTLY OUT OF LOAN FROM NITIN MAHESHWARI YOUR HONOUR WILL VERY KINDLY APPRECIATE THAT THE SURVEY TEAM COULD NOT DETECT THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED. THE SURVEY TEAM OBSERVED/DETECTED THE AFORESAID DIFFERENCE IN STOCK PURELY ON ESTIMATION BASIS OR ON STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. WE TRUST THAT THE SAME WILL MEET YOUR VALUED SATISFACTION HOWEVER, SIR NEED BE OF ANY FURTHER INFORMATION, EXPLANATION OR EVIDENCE IN THE MATTER, ENLIGHTEN US ABOUT THE SAME. 7.3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT SUFFICIENT ENQUIRIES AND VERIFICATIONS WAS CONDUCTED BY THE A O AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE SAME WAS REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE SUFFICIENTLY. WE FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE A SSESSEES SUBMISSIONS THAT SURVEY TEAM COULD NOT DETECT THE D IFFERENCE IN 14 STOCK AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED. HOWEVER , THE SURVEY TEAM OBSERVED / DETECTED THE AFORESAID DIFFE RENCES IN STOCK PURELY ON ESTIMATION BASIS OR ON STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF L AW. WE FURTHER FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL THAT AO MADE THE ASSESSMENT UNDE R SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT JUDICIOUSLY AFTER INVESTIGATING THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO DISCREPANCY IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S WAS FOUND BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE EXPLANATION WITH REFERENCE TO INVESTM ENT IN FLAT AT NOIDA WAS DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. PR. CIT DUR ING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE SETTING ASIDE THE CASE UNDER SEC TION 263 OF THE ACT. DESPITE THAT THE LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX HAS INVOKED SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WHICH IS NO T SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THEREFORE, THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS AS INITIATED BY THE LD. PR. CIT ARE INV ALID, BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE, AS IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE THE AO HAS PASSED THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT JUDICIOUSLY AFTER INVE STIGATION THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT FOUND ANY DISCREPAN CY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 8. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS, WE HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED LD. PR. CI T U/S.263 15 OF THE I.T. ACT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND NOT SU STAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER I S HEREBY QUASHED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/09/2017. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13/09/2017 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY OR DER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR