LABH SINGH SALUJA, BEMETARA,BEMETARA V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

ITA 214/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Labh Singh Saluja, the proprietor of M/s Saluja Traders, who appealed against the order of the PCIT, Bhopal, which set aside the assessment made by the ACIT, Raipur. The PCIT's order was based on the grounds that the ACIT had failed to properly investigate the nature and source of the undisclosed income amounting to Rs. 1,03,15,222 surrendered by Saluja during a survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT examined whether the PCIT was justified in invoking section 263 and found that the ACIT had indeed overlooked critical inquiries that should have been made regarding the treatment of the surrendered income under sections 68-69D and 115BBE of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 299019 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Daniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.L.ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained investment; Source of fund; Loose papers; Assessment record; Revision of order
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 263; 48; 68; 139; 2(A); 133A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर Ɋायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR ŵी रिवश सूद, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी अŜण खोड़िपया, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM (आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 214/RPR/2024) (िनधाŊरण वषŊ Assessment Year: 2019-20) Labh Singh Saluja, Pro. M/s Saluja Traders, Main Road, Bemetara, C.G., 491335 V s Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal AT Jaba, Aayakar Bhawan, 48 Arera Hills, Bhopal (M.P.), 462011 PAN: AOUPS7745G (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) . . (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Ravi Agrawal, CA राजˢ की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The Captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal AT Jaba (for short, “Ld. PCIT”), u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “The Act”), for the Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20, dated 18.03.2024. Resulted, from the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Raipur (for short, “The Ld. AO”), U/s 143(3) dated 26.07.2021. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the present appeal are as under: 2 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 1) The order passed u/s 263 is contrary to law, illegal, unsustainable and is passed without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income (Central), Bhopal AT Jaba u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by assuming jurisdiction on debatable nature of the taxability issue is bad in law, and therefore, is liable to be quashed, 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income (Central); Bhopal AT Jaba u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 setting aside the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is without jurisdiction and bad in law, and therefore, is liable to be quashed. 4) The appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a survey action u/s 133A was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 15.02.2019. Thereafter, the ITR u/s 139 of the Act was filed by the assessee declaring total income at Rs. 1,11,39,600/-. Later, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment on compulsory criteria. During the assessment proceedings, it is noted by the Ld. AO, that the income surrendered by the assessee in survey action U/s 133A amounting to Rs. 1,03,15,222/- are duly disclosed in the ITR filed u/s 139. Ld. AO, after considering all the facts, 3 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal relevant documents, various aspects of the case and material available on record, have completed the assessment u/s 143(3) accepting the income declared by the assessee in return, determining the taxable income of the assessee at Rs. 1,11,39,600/-. 4. The matter thereafter came to the attention of the Ld. Jurisdictional PCIT, who noticed that the Ld. AO have missed to invoke the relevant provisions of section 68-69D to treat the income surrendered as unexplained investment / money / cash and also the crucial aspect to tax the income surrendered by the assessee at special rate specified u/s 115BBE. It is observed by the revisionary authority that the Ld. AO had completed the assessment without inquiring into and verifying the matter, in the manner in which it should have been examined. Ld. PCIT further opined that the Ld. AO merely had accepted the reply of assessee that “the difference in stock, cash and in building construction found during the survey is taken in books and offered for taxation”. Ld. PCIT also observed that during the assessment proceedings neither the AO has asked for nor the assessee has submitted any explanation to this aspect that the source of such undisclosed investment is verifiable on the basis of cogent evidence like purchase bills / challans / debit / credit notes / vouchers for expenses / receipts, source of fund received / transfer though banking channel etc. Ld. PCIT then, based on his conviction 4 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal has triggered the provisions of explanation 2(a) and (b) to section 263 of the Act, which permits him to exercise his powers in a case where the order passed by the Ld. AO found to be without making inquiries or verification which should have been made. A show cause thus was issued to the assessee for rebuttal and response. The contents of the show cause issued u/s 263, which is extracted hereunder for the sake of better appreciation of the facts: 5 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 6 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 7 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 8 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 9 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 5. In response to the aforesaid show cause notice, it is noticed by the Ld. PCIT that neither anyone appeared from the assessee’s side, nor any submission was filed. Again, a final show cause notice was issued on 01.03.2024, requiring the assessee to furnish his submissions. In response, a submission was filed by the assessee on 26.02.2024. However, the response of assessee was not found relevant / satisfactory by the Ld. PCIT, for the reason noted by him that in the reply, assessee has emphasized mainly that he provided the detailed explanation in response to the queries raised by the Ld. AO and on being satisfied with the response, the Ld. AO had passed the assessment order accepting the original income surrendered by the assessee as business income and, accordingly, requested to drop the proceedings initiated u/s 263, however, the reply of assessee was not found tenable / correct by the Ld. PCIT, for which he described multiple reasons which laid him to conclude that the assessment order passed on 26.07.2021 by the Ld. AO was without conducting the requisite inquiries / verifications. The categorical reasons stating failures on the part of Ld. AO, rejecting the contentions of the assessee, described by the Ld. PCIT in his order are extracted as under, for the sake of logical interpretation: 10 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 5. However, the assessee's reply is not tenable / correct for the reasons as described below: (i) Surrender of Rs. 1,03,15,222/- was made during the survey proceedings only when the discrepancies found in stock, cash and investment in building construction were confronted to the assessee and he failed to explain the above discrepancies found during survey. (ii) In the statement given on oath during survey proceedings on 15.02.2019, the assessee surrendered an amount of Rs. 1,03,15,222/- (Rs. 52,16,834/- on account of excess stock, Rs. 5,01,230/- on account of excess cash and Rs. 45,97,158/- on account of unexplained investment in building construction) being his additional OTHER business income' (vfrfjDr vU; O;kikfjd vk;½ This (taken from the statement under oath of assessee – below) apparently indicates there being other business In addition to his regular business. The relevant portion of the statement recorded on 15- 02-2019 is reproduced hereunder: 11 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal (iii) In view of the above, it is clear that during the course of survey proceedings, the assessee failed to explain the nature and sources of discrepancies found and accordingly surrendered an amount of Rs. 1,03,15,222/- (Rs. 52,16,834/- on account of excess stock, Rs. 5,01,230/- on account of excess cash and Rs. 45,97,158/- on account of unexplained investment in building construction) as his undisclosed income for the AY 2019-20 being his 'additional OTHER business income' (vfrfjDr vU; O;kikfjd vk;½ . This apparently indicates here being other business in addition to his regular business. 12 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal Hence, the nature and source of such surrendered undisclosed income of Rs. 1,03,15,222/- remained unexplained. However, in the assessment order dated 26.07.2021, this surrendered undisclosed income of Rs. 1,03,15,222/- has not been treated under the provisions of section 115BBE of the l. T. Act (r.w. one of sections 68 — 69D). (iv) The undisclosed income surrendered during the survey action, is potentially liable to be taxed at special rate stipulated u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act (r.w. one of sections 68 — 69D). This matter has not been inquired into and verified by the AO who has merely accepted the reply of the assessee that \"the difference in stock, cash and in building construction found during survey, is taken in books of accounts & offered for taxation\" and with observation that the surrendered amount of Rs. 1,03,15,222/- has already been included in the return of income filed by the assessee. (v) Moreover, mere subsequent recording of undisclosed Income found during survey in the books of account by the appellant does not make such undisclosed income belonging to his disclosed business since, the assessment record shows, that neither the AO has asked for nor the assessee has submitted during assessment proceedings, any verifiable evidences regarding the source of investment to earn such undisclosed income as well as the purchase bills / challans / debit / credit notes / vouchers for expenses / receipts, the source of funds and being received / transferred through banking channels / etc. (vi) Clearly, in the assessment order dated 26.07.2021, the AO has not done requisite inquiry / verification on the issue of treatment of this surrendered undisclosed income of Rs. 1,03,15,222/- under the provisions of section 115BBE of the l. T. Act (r.w. one of sections 68 — 69D), despite the fact that the assessee had failed to explain the nature and sources of surrendered undisclosed income of Rs. 1,03,15,222/- during the course of survey proceedings. 13 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 6. Supported with the aforesaid observations specifying the reasons led him to rejecting the contentions of the assessee, after placing reliance on various judicial pronouncements, Ld. PCIT set aside the order of Ld. AO, to reframe the assessment de novo to the extent directed, with the following conclusion: 8. Accordingly, after careful examination of the facts placed on record and the legal position discussed as above, I am of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has not inquired into and verified: the issue of treatment of surrendered undisclosed income of Rs. 1,03,15,222/- under the provisions of section 115BBE of the l. T. Act (r.w. one of sections 68 — 69D), despite the fact that the assessee had failed to explain the nature and sources of surrendered undisclosed income of Rs. 1,03,15,222/- during the course of survey proceedings. which he should have done before completing the assessment as was required from him. In view of the above facts, I am satisfied that the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) for A. Y. 2019-20 on 26.07.2021 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) for A. Y. 2019-20 on 26.07.2021 is set aside to the above extent. The Assessing Officer is directed to reframe the assessment de novo to the above extent (leaving the other issues in the original assessment order as such) after conducting proper inquiries in the light of directions / discussion above and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 14 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 7. Aggrieved with the aforesaid decision of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT, challenging the revisionary proceedings invoked by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. 8. At the outset before us, Ld. AR of the assessee have submitted that the issues for which the revisionary proceeding has been initiated, invoking the provisions of section 263, were duly examined by the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3). Ld. AR placed his reliance on the observations of the Ld. AO in the assessment order that: “The assessee furnished written submissions and supporting documents which were perused and placed on record. The submissions made by the assessee was verified vis-à-vis the document impounded during the survey action. Various aspects of the case were discussed with him.” 9. It is further, argued by the Ld. AR that, the Ld. AO also observed in the assessment order that: “During the course of survey conduction at the business premises of the assessee, documents/ loose papers were found and impounded. The documents are in the incriminating in nature. Further in his statement 15 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal recorded on oath during the course of survey, the assessee surrendered an amount of Rs.1,03.15,222/- as his undisclosed income for the FY 2018- 19 relevant to AY 2019-20. All the relevant documents were examined and found that the assessee has already included the surrendered amount of Rs. 1,03,15,222/- in his return of income and paid all the taxes liability together with interest.” 10. It was the submission by Ld. AR that Ld. AO himself has specifically mentioned in the order that he had examined all the relevant documents qua the income surrendered during the survey including the documents/ loose papers surfaced and impounded by the department, under such circumstances, it is incomprehensible as per what sort of further inquiries the Ld. PCIT is expecting from the Ld. AO. 11. In advancing the argument further, Ld. AR submitted before us a written synopsis, the same is extracted hereunder for completeness of the facts: 16 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 17 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 18 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 19 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 20 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 21 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 12. Backed by aforesaid submissions, the Multifold contentions raised by the Ld. AR are summarized as under: (i) Specific query to the issue was asked by the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) and duly responded by the assessee. To substantiate the specific query made in the notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 11.02.2021 was reiterated by the Ld. AR. The abstract of the said queries issued by the Ld. AO, culled out from the assessee’s PB page no. 43-46 are as under: 22 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 23 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 24 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 25 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 13. Referring to the aforesaid queries by the Ld. AO qua the excess cash, excess stock and excess investment in building construction, a response was furnished by the assessee, copy of which has been placed before us at page no. 48-53 of the assessee’s PB, from which the reply to relevant queries is culled out hereunder: 26 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 14. On the basis of aforesaid facts from the proceedings during the assessment u/s 143(3), Ld. AR contended that the Ld. AO has asked specific query, and a reply was furnished by the assessee. Being satisfied with the response of the assessee, Ld. AO accepted the same and have taken a sustainable view. Ld. AR placed his reliance on various case laws, referred to supra. (ii) The second contention by the Ld. AR was that the Ld. PCIT did not point out the specific section and provision of the Act, which the Ld. AO should have considered qua the surrendered income. It is the submission that 27 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal Ld. PCIT have just doubted about the undisclosed income surrendered during the survey to be potentially liable to tax at special rates prescribed u/s 115BBE r.w.s. 68-69D. It is mentioned that the Ld. PCIT is not clearly able to point out the error in the order of Ld. AO. (iii) The third contention of the Ld. AR was that on facts of the case the excess stock found during the survey action was part and partial of regular stock in trade, there was no finding by the revenue about any physical distinction between the accounted and unaccounted stock. It is the argument that department did not bring on record any other source of income of the assessee other than the regular business income. 15. Based on aforesaid submissions, it was the prayer that all the unexplained incomes accepted by the assessee and declared as surrendered income in the returned filed after the survey action are generated from the same business, there is no other source of income, even the department does not find any other source of income of the assessee at the time of survey, therefore, the impugned order passed by Ld. PCIT u/s 263 dated 18.03.2024 was against the mandate of law, illegal, unsustainable and without proper appreciation of the facts of the case is liable to be quashed. 28 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 16. Ld. CIT-DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of Ld. PCIT and requested to uphold the same. 17. We have considered the rival submission, perused the material available on record and case laws relied upon by both the parties. On perusal of the factual aspect in the present case and on a careful consideration of the judicial pronouncements pressed by the parties, the question before us to be contemplate upon is that “whether the Ld. PCIT was well within his powers to initiate the reopening proceedings in terms of explanation 2(a) and (b) of section 263 of the Act”. As per the referred provisions of the Act, the Principal Commissioner is conferred with the powers to consider the order of Ld. AO as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, if in the opinion of Ld. PCIT, (a) the order is passed without making enquiries or verifications which should have been made and (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without enquiring into the claim. Herein, admittedly the issue regarding unexplained income of the assesses on account of excess cash, excess stock and excess building construction are taken up for inquiries by the Ld. AO vide his notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 11.02.2021, it is also discernible from the said notice that Ld. AO had specifically pursued the clarification that the assessee is required to explain the source of investment made for construction of house along with documentary evidence and reconcile the investment 29 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal amount with the books of accounts. Regarding excess cash found during the survey action Ld. AO required the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash found along with its reconciliation in the books of accounts. Also, regarding excess stock Ld. AO requested the assessee to explain the reason and reconciliation of difference in stock in the books of account of the assessee. In totality, Ld. AO have specifically show caused the assessee that why the aforesaid unexplained amounts should not be treated as unaccounted income of the assessee. To the aforesaid queries by the Ld. AO, a response was submitted by the assessee qua all these 3 unexplained income, admitting that the same are treated as undisclosed income for FY 2018-19 and offered for taxation. Herein, we may observe that there is no clarification by the assessee nor anything has been placed on record as per the response of the assessee before the Ld. AO qua the source of impugned undisclosed incomes admitted by the assessee, no corroborative evidence to satisfy the queries of the Ld. AO regarding the nature and source of such investments are adduced by the assessee before the Ld. AO, however, Ld. AO had accepted the contentions of the assessee merely on the basis of assessee’s assertions in the reply that the assessee had shown and considered such undisclosed surrendered income to offer for taxation in his return of income. Satisfaction recorded by the Ld. AO was towards the admission of surrendered income in the return of income by the assessee, but there was a failure on the part of Ld. 30 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal AO that the further requisite inquiries are to be made qua the source of unexplained income surrendered by the assessee were not considered necessary, even in absence of any reply by the assessee on this issue Ld. AO raised, thus, without proper inquiries or verifications which are obligatory on the Ld. AO, as per explanation 2(a) to section 263, it was the duty of Ld. PCIT to intervene in the matter and to exercise the powers conferred upon him to revise the assessment completed by the Ld. AO to the extent it is found to be erroneous causing prejudice to the interest of revenue. On this issue, Ld. PCIT had placed his reliance on the orders of Daniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO [2017TIOL-2526-H.C Kolkata IT], which subsequently was carried before the Hon’ble Apex Court and decided on 30.11.2017, wherein, view of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court has been approved, with the following observations: “we find that the Commissioner of Income Tax had passed an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with the observations that the Assessing Officer did not make any proper inquiry while making the assessment and accepting the explanation of the assessee(s) insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned. On that basis the Commissioner of Income Tax had, after setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer, simply directed the Assessing Officer to carry thorough and detailed inquiry. It is this order which is upheld by the High Court. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court.” 31 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 18. Apropos, the case laws referred and relied by the Ld. AR, we are of the view that the same cannot be of any help to the case of assessee, as the specific query by the Ld. AO were not responded by the assessee in totality, still the response of assessee was considered by the Ld. AO without seeking clarification qua the nature and source of the unexplained income surrendered by the assessee, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any formation of view by the Ld. AO regarding the nature and source of the undisclosed income. On merits since there was no adjudication by the Ld. AO, in absence of requisite response in the form of explanation, evidence or corroborative documents to substantiate that the generation of income utilized in undisclosed surrendered by the assessee from assessee’s business only. The findings emerging from the judgments relied upon by the Ld. AR is not subject matter before us at this stage, for the reason that the Ld. AO has not looked into the requisite information to held and consider undisclosed of the assessee as his business income. As per order of Ld. AO, as the assessee had included the surrendered amount in his return of income, the Ld. AO does not consider it necessary to inquire into about the nature and source of such surrendered income and under which section such income of the assessee was to be taxed. Therefore, without adverting to the merits of the issues, since the matter is set aside by the Ld. PCIT to the files for Ld. AO for conducting proper / necessary inquiries and to re-adjudicate the issue after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, there is no prejudice to the assessee, 32 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal also the assessee shall be at liberty to take support of all such decisions / judicial pronouncements during the set aside proceedings before the Ld. AO to support his contentions. In such a scenario, order of Ld. PCIT cannot be considered to be bad in law or without authority of law. 19. In back drop of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and observations in the present case, respectfully following the principle of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Daniel Marchants Pvt. Ltd (supra), we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. PCIT passed u/s 263 read with explanation 2(a) of Section 263 of the Act. 20. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations upheld the order of the ld. PCIT. 21. In result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 is rendered as dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 33 ITA No. 214/RPR/2024 Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara Vs Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal Order pronounced in the open court on 29/10/2024. Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर/Raipur; िदनांक Dated 29/10/2024 Vaibhav Shrivastav आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ITAT, Raipur 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant- Labh Singh Saluja, Bemetara 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent- Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 3. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. // स×याǒपत Ĥित True copy // "