Case Law Details
Sh. Sanjay Jain Vs PCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)
In the present set of cases, AO asked the assessees to furnish the relevant details relating to Long Term Capital Gain, Short Term Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act and unsecured loans and the assessees furnished all the relevant documents which were examined by the AO who has taken a possible view. Therefore, it is our considered view that there was a due application of mind on the part of the AO in all the four cases and adequate and proper enquiries had been conducted by the AO in this regard and, therefore, the impugned orders passed u/s 263 of the Act have no feet to stand on. We are also in agreement with the argument of the Ld. Counsel that in the cases of Sanjay Jain & Sons and Shri Tarun Jain bearing ITA No. 141/Chd/2021 and 144/Chd/2021 no show cause notice u/s 263 was issued on account of unsecured loan and hence the Ld. PCIT could not have exercised his jurisdiction to set aside the case on the issues of unsecured loan in these two cases. Accordingly, we hold that the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act were bad in law in all the captioned four appeals and we quash the revisionary proceedings for the reason that the AO had made adequate enquiries is all the four cases and further the Ld. PCIT had not conducted any independent enquiry on his own before coming to an incorrect conclusion that the assessment orders were erroneous as being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and were liable to be set aside.
Since we, have quashed the impugned orders passed u/s 263 of the Act for the reasons as given in the preceding paragraphs, we are not inclined to comment/adjudicate on the issue of requirement of revision of approval/s obtained under section 153D of the Act. We are also not inclined to comment/adjudicate on the issue of the Ld. PCIT having initiated the impugned proceedings on proposal/s initiated by the Assessing Officer.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH
The above captioned four appeals are of the same family and by way of these appeals, the respective assessees have challenged the correctness of the order of Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Ludhiana (PCIT) pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17, wherein, the Ld. PCIT has set aside the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) in respect of the captioned assessees and has held that the assessments, as framed by the Assessing Officer, were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the Assessing Officer had allegedly framed the assessments without making the requisite enquiries/verifications and without due application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Since, the four appeals involve a common issue; they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
