Shri Chitrak Satishkumar Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Pr. CIT-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 88/AHD/2021

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Shri Chitrak Satishkumar Shah against the order of the PCIT, Ahmedabad-4, which revised the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The PCIT had found that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not adequately investigate the creditworthiness and genuineness of unsecured loans received by the assessee, leading to a revision under section 263. The Tribunal, however, disagreed with the PCIT, noting that the AO had indeed made inquiries and accepted the loans based on the materials provided, which included bank statements and income tax returns of the creditors. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere inadequacy of inquiry does not render the order erroneous unless it is shown that the AO did not apply his mind or completely omitted to make any inquiry.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136006 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2021
• Other Referred Cases: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In reported in 125 taxmann.com 151, CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto 332 ITR 167 (Del.), Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), Sh. Narayan TatuRane Vs. ITO, I.T.A. No. 2690/2691/Mum/2016, dt. 06.05.2016, Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 2 v. Shree Gayatri Associates*[2019] 106 taxmann.com 31 (SC), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Meerut v. Canara Bank Securities Ltd[2020] 114 taxmann.com 545 (SC), PCIT Vs. Shreeji Prints Pvt. Ltd. reported in 130 taxmann.com 293
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRINTED FROM ITATORDERS.INPRINTED FROM ITATORDERS.INPRINTED FROM COUNSELVISE.COM
• Keywords: Gift; Business income; Revision of order; Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income; Period of limitation; Question of law; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 131; 68; 263; 2; 143(3); 142(1); 133(6); 69A; 2(A); 13; 101

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद᭠यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ B’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.88/AHD/2021 िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Shri Chitrak Satishkumar Shah 18, Pushpadhanva Bunglows, Opp. Takshila, Premchandnagar, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN: ALTPS4712K Vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-4 (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Nupur Shah, A.R. & Shri Dhiren Shah, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT D.R सुनवाईकᳱतारीख/Date of Hearing : 15/12/2022 घोषणाकᳱतारीख/Date of Pronouncement: 10/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-4, dated 25/03/2020 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Ld. AR at the outset brought to our notice that there is a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee for 343 days which is falling during the covid-19 period, therefore, the same should be condoned. On the other hand, the Ld. DR did not raise any objection on the condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee ITA No.88/AHD/2021 A.Y. 2015-16 2 in pursuance to the judgment of Hon’ble SC in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In reported in 125 taxmann.com 151 where it was held as under: 2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15-3-2020 till 14-3-2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15-3-2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15-3-2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 2.1 In view of the above, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 2.2 The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned PCIT erred in holding the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and declared the income of Rs. 6,69,25,280/- only. The return of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 06-12-2017 at Rs. 6,88,26,540/- only. 4. The learned PCIT on examination of the assessment records of the assessee, found that the assessee during the year received unsecured loan of Rs. 4.50 crores and 4.975 crores from SN Shah HUF and Shivalik (Ambli) Co-Operative Society Ltd. During the assessment proceeding, the assessee in order to establish the identity, genuineness of transaction and credit worthiness of the creditor furnished copy of confirmation, bank statement and ITR in case of SN Shah HUF whereas in case of Shivalik (Ambli) Co-Operative Society Ltd only furnished copy of confirmation and bank statement. The learned PCIT further found that the said HUF has declared meagre income of Rs. 1,74,240/-only and in the bank account, it was having balance of Rs. 40,901/- only at relevant point of time. As such, the bank of SN Shah HUF was credited from unknown party just before the amount transferred to the assessee. Thus, the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness ITA No.88/AHD/2021 A.Y. 2015-16 3 was not fully established. However, the AO without proper examination and correct application of mind framed the assessment accepting the genuineness of impugned loan transaction. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT initiated the proceedings under section 263 of the Act vide show cause notice dated 13 January 2022. 5. The assessee in response to such show cause notice submitted that during the assessment proceeding, the detailed submission with regard to unsecured loan was submitted. Accordingly, the assessee discharged the onus cast under section 68 of the Act. Thus, the AO after considering the submission and application of mind was satisfied with the genuineness of loan credit. Therefore, there is no error in the order of the AO in this regard as the AO has taken one of the possible view. The assessee further submitted that the order of the AO can be held as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of Revenue if the order is passed without adhering the provisions of law or passed without making prudent inquiry. Both these conditions are not applicable in the order passed by the AO in case of the assessee. It was also submitted that in case of SN Shah HUF, all the necessary details such as confirmation, bank statement showing transfer of money and ITR were furnished and on the strength of such details, the AO was satisfied. Therefore, the order of the AO cannot be held erroneous merely for the reason that the creditor party declared meagre income. Likewise, in case of Shivalik Co- operative housing society, the ledger copy and confirmation along with bank statement were furnished before the AO from which it can perused that the account of Shivalik Co-operative is a running account where there was opening loan, repayment and fresh loan received during the year. Thus the primary onus was duly discharged cast under section 68 of the Act by the assessee, therefore there is no error in the order of the AO which caused prejudice to the revenue. 6. However, the ld. PCIT disagreed with the submission of the assessee and revised the order of the AO under section 263 of the Act being erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of Revenue by observing as under: ITA No.88/AHD/2021 A.Y. 2015-16 4 “3.5 In view of the above discussion, my own appraisal of the facts of the case is noted as under:- 1) The assessee has filed the single page copy of the bank statement of Shri S.N. Shah HUF wherein the credits and debits of three transactions of Rs.1,50,00,000/- are reflected. The borrowed fund has been further given as loan and advance to the family members/family concerns. The A.O. failed to make necessary inquiry as to whether Shri S.N. Shah HUF has the creditworthiness of providing the loans which were further found to be financed by some unknown person(s) through transfer to his bank account. The A.O. did not call for further details i.e. the profit & loss account, balance-sheet, sources of income, sources of funds so transferred in his bank account and accepted the confirmation and the copy of ITR-V as such. The A.O. had ample powers to summon this party u/s 131 of the Act and to call for information u/s 133(6) of the Act so as to satisfy one of the tests of "creditworthiness" of this person. Further, the A.O. ought to have noted the fact that when the assessee is capable of giving gift of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- out of his own funds, what was the necessity to borrow the funds from his father's HUF and that too, for providing finance to his brother Shri Taral Satishkumar Shah. All these facts and circumstances lead to a strong belief that the assessee has resorted to the measures to avoid the taxes in his hand under the garb of such financial transactions. 2) So far as the loan from Shivalik(Ambli) Co-op. Housing Society is concerned, I found it to be a running account and the funds have been obtained from time to time and provided to Shri Satish N. Shah(father), Shri Taral S. Shah(brother) and group concerns for repayment of loans and also for introduction of the capital in LLP Bhikhabhai Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The copy of bank account filed in respect of this Coop. Hsg. Society maintained with Dena Bank revealed that there were credit entries of the same amounts or totaling to the same amounts which have been transferred to the account of the assessee. No copies of ITR-V, statement of total income, profit & loss account, balance-sheet etc. have been called for by the A.O. by either issuing summons u/s 131 of the Act or calling information u/s 133(6) of the Act. It is also necessary to verify the constitution of this Co-op. Hsg. Society and to find out as to whether the Chairman & Secretary of this Co-op. Hsg. Society are the family members of the assessee and the administration of this society had been retained by them even after completion of the housing project and handing over the possession to the members. Thus, the A.O. has been found to have not carried out the required inquiries in relation to these loan transactions. 3.6 The A.O. has also failed to intimate the above-mentioned loan transactions to the concerned AOs for taking necessary actions at their end and he himself has wrongly satisfied about the genuineness of these loan transactions. 3.7 Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case as appraised above, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 06.12.2017 is held to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore is set-aside u/s 263 of the Act together with its explanation no. 2 so as to further hold that the impugned assessment order was passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made by the Assessing Officer. 3.8 The Assessing Officer is directed to make the following specific inquiries while deciding issues of taking loans from the above-mentioned two persons so as to conclude as to whether the loan transactions were genuine and these two persons had capacity(creditworthiness) to advance these loans or not:- a) To call for the details of the sources of amounts deposited in the bank accounts of both the above-mentioned persons before the amounts were transferred to the account of the assessee. ITA No.88/AHD/2021 A.Y. 2015-16 5 b) To call for the copies of accounts viz, balance-sheet and profit & loss account for the financial year ending on 31.03.2015 with the copies of loan accounts in respect of the assessee as drawn in the books of accounts of these persons. c) In respect of Shivalik(Ambli) Co-o. Housing Society, the details of its constitution, copy of registration certificate obtained from the Registrar of Co-op. Society of State of Gujarat, the list of office bearers during the financial year 2015-16 etc. so as to inquire into the persons bringing such funds for the assessee and the sources thereof. d) Details of repayments of these loans in subsequent years. If the loans are still found to be outstanding, they have to be treated as per findings in consequence to this order. e) The details of the assessment orders passed in the case of two persons, if they are selected for scrutiny assessment for A.Y.2015-16 or for any other assessment years (not beyond the period of 3 years preceding or succeeding of the A. Y. 2015- 16). f) To pass a specific speaking order by bringing all the facts on record after proper examination/verification of the details to be obtained now and after giving due opportunities to the assessee. g) The Assessing Officer will not disturb the disallowances made in the assessment order as they are subject to appeal filed by the assessee. 4. The revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act are accordingly concluded by passing the aforesaid order and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above. The assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 06.12.2017 is held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The A.O. is accordingly directed to make the assessment de-novo after carrying out the necessary inquiries as caused to be made and mentioned above.” 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 114 and contended that one of the reason for selection of limited scrutiny assessment in the case of appellant was to verify the unsecured loan. The appellant during the assessment proceeding furnished all the necessary details about the credit of unsecured loan during the assessment proceedings. The learned AR in support of his contention drew attention on pages 74 and pages 77 to 101 of the paper book where the notice under section 142(1) of the Act and reply of assessee along with documentary evidences were placed. Thus, the learned AR contended that there ITA No.88/AHD/2021 A.Y. 2015-16 6 cannot be said that the assessment order is erroneous and causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue in the given facts and circumstances. 9. On the contrary, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. PCIT. 10. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the present case relates whether the assessment order has been passed by Ld. AO without making inquiries or verification with respect to the credit of unsecured loan received from the parties as discussed above and hence the assessment is erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and thus requiring revision by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act. 11. 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 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 are a number of judgments by various Hon’ble High Courts in this regard. 12. 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 of the Act on the ground of inadequate inquiry. The relevant observation of Hon’ble Delhi High Court reads as under: 15. Thus, even the Commissioner conceded the position that the Assessing Officer made the inquiries, elicited replies and thereafter passed the ITA No.88/AHD/2021 A.Y. 2015-16 7 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’.” 13. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), discussed the law on this aspect in length in the following manner: “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. 14. The Mumbai ITAT in the case of Sh. Narayan TatuRane 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 provison 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 by way of Explanation 2(a) shall have retrospective or prospective application shall not be relevant.” 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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 revised order after making addition to assessee's income under section 69A in respect of on-money receipts, however, ITA No.88/AHD/2021 A.Y. 2015-16 8 said order was set aside by Tribunal holding that AO had made detailed enquiries in respect of such 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 revised order under section 263 on ground that Assessing Officer had failed 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 on-money transactions and Tribunal, thus, set aside the revised order passed by Commissioner. The Hon’ble High Court upheld Tribunal's order. The Hon’ble 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” 16. The Supreme Court in the another 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” 17. From an analysis of the above judicial precedents, the principle which emerges is that the phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' has to be ITA No.88/AHD/2021 A.Y. 2015-16 9 read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when an assessing officer adopts one of the course permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner of Income-tax does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order causing prejudice to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law, or the AO has completely omitted to make any enquiry altogether or the order demonstrates non-application of mind. 18. Now in the facts before us, in the case of the assessee and we note that one of the reason for selection of limited scrutiny was to verify the credit of unsecured loan. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings, raises query on the issue of the credit of unsecured loan which can be verified from the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act dated 28.11.2017. The relevant question reads as under: Reason for selection under limited scrutiny is as follows: (1) Unsecured Loan from the person who have not filed their return of income (Form 3CD) (2) High turnover reported in service Tax Return compared to ITR. (3) Mismatch in amount paid to related person u/s.40 A(2)(b) reported in audit repot and ITR. (4) Large any other deduction claimed in sch.BP creating a loss without any income in profit & Loss A/c. (5) No entry in schedule Asset and liabilities. (6) Mismatch in sales turover reported in audit report and ITR. (7) High turnover reported Service tax return compared to ITR and assessee has deposited large amount of cash saving bank account. (8) Large interest expenses relatable to exempt income (u/s.14A) (9) Gross interest shown in schedule OS of ITR is less than interest receipts reported in 26AS. A fresh opportunity is being granted due to change of incumbent. The case is fixed for hearing on 25.06.2017 at 10.30 AM at the above office address. You are requested to submit all the above said details duly indexed called for on the same date. Non/parties compliance of the notice u/s.142(1), may render you liable for penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act. Further, please file the submission in a proper file/box file /spiral binding. It may kindly be noted that if your case is represented through Authorized Representative (AR) no submission will be accepted in dak/otherwise unless it is provided ITA No.88/AHD/2021 A.Y. 2015-16 10 along with authority letter duly signed by the assessee as per provision mentioned u/s.288(2). 18.1 In response to the above notice, the assessee has made the reply vide letter dated 28-11-2017 as reproduced below: “1. {Sr. No. 2(vii)(1)} Unsecured loan from persons who have filed their return of income. In this regard for your honour ready reference we are submitting herewith ledger confirmations, Acknowledgement of return of Income along with bank statements of the persona from whom unsecured loan taken during the year as per Exhibit-I.” 19. The assessee in response thereto files certain detail such as copy of ledger, confirmation, bank statement in case of both the creditors. The assessee furnished copy of PAN, and ITR in case of creditor namely S.N Shah HUF. All these details are placed on pages 77 to 101 of the paper book. From the above it is revealed it is not the case that the AO has not made any enquiry. Indeed, the Pr. CIT initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the AO has not made enquiries or verification which should have been made in respect of credit of loan taken. It is not the case of the Pr. CIT that the Ld. AO did not apply his mind to the issue on hand or he had omitted to make enquiries altogether. In the instant set of facts, the AO had made enquiries and after consideration of material placed on record accepted the genuineness of the claim of the assessee. 20. At this juncture, it is also important to note that the learned PCIT in his order passed under section 263 of the Act has made reference to the explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act. It was attempted by the learned PCIT to hold that there were certain necessary enquiries which should have been made by the AO during the assessment proceedings but not conducted by him. In this regard, we make our observation that the learned PCIT has not invoked the explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act in the show cause notice. Therefore, the opportunity with respect to the explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act was not afforded to the assessee. Thus, on this count the learned PCIT erred in taking the shelter of such provisions while deciding the issue against the assessee. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the ITA No.88/AHD/2021 A.Y. 2015-16 11 case of PCIT Vs. Shreeji Prints Pvt. Ltd. reported in 130 taxmann.com 293 wherein it was held as under: 5 The Tribunal has found that in the order passed by the PCIT, Explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act, 1961 is made applicable. The Tribunal observed that the PCIT has not mentioned in the show cause notice to invoke the Explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act 1961. Therefore, by invocation of Explanation in the order without confronting the assessee and giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee is not appropriate and sustainable in law. 21. Before parting it also necessary to take the note of the finding of the ld. PCIT that the learned PCIT in his order passed under section 263 of the Act has observed certain facts as detailed below: i. The assessee has filed the details of the loan given by the aforesaid entities. ii. The karta of the HUF is father of the assessee. PAN of the HUF was also furnished. iii. There were other loan transactions between the father and the son in the personal capacity. iv. The amount of loan received by the assessee have been transferred to other parties. To this effect, no business purpose was established. v. The assessee is maintaining running account with the society. 21.1 From the above observation of the learned PCIT, it seems that all the details were available or in the knowledge of the learned PCIT with respect to the loan transaction. Despite that the learned PCIT has restored the issue to the AO for further verification which is not desirable under the provisions of law. Once the AO after considering the materials available on record has taken one of the plausible view, then there is no reason to set aside the same issue to the file of the AO for fresh verification. In view of the above and after considering the facts in totality, we hold that there is no error in the assessment framed by the AO under section 143(3) causing prejudice to the interest of revenue. Thus, the ITA No.88/AHD/2021 A.Y. 2015-16 12 revisional order passed by the learned PCIT is not sustainable and therefore we quash the same. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 22. In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 10/02/2023 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 10/02/2023 Tanmay/Manish, Sr. PS TRUE COPY