Anil Exports (India) Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT Ahmedabad held that invocation of section 263 of the Income Tax Act not justifiable since PCIT expressed different view and the same amounts to second opinion. Thus, order passed u/s. 263 of the Act not justifiable.
Facts- The assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 03-07-2015 determining total income of Rs. 11,70,590/-. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings initiated and order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B was passed on 28-032022 by accepting the returned income. Pr. CIT observed that the reasons for reopening was accommodation entry from entry operator Shri Sanjay Govindram Agrawal (also known as Sanjay Triberewal). In the course of the assessment proceedings, AO has not made any addition despite specific information about accommodation entries as per the observation of the Pr. CIT. Accordingly, notice u/s. 263 of the Act was issued on 29-02-2024 and after considering the reply from the assesse, Pr. CIT set aside the assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax and directed AO to pass a fresh assessment order.
Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that after going through the reassessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B as the Assessing Officer after verifying the data has categorically mentioned that the assessee has filed the response to all the notices and furnished the details which does not find any discrepancies and therefore accepted the assessee’s return of income. Further at the time of hearing, the assessee has produced all the details related to the said lenders (parties), confirmations of these parties along with bank statements and ledger accounts which has categorically given all the details related to the business transactions of the assessee and therefore all these documents were present before the Assessing Officer and the assessee has taken a right view to accept the return of income of the assessee. The PCIT has overlooked all these evidences and has expressed his different view which amounts to second opinion and therefore invocation of section 263 is not justifiable. There is no prejudicial to the interest of revenue in the present case while passing the assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and assessment order at any point of time appears to be erroneous. Thus, the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act is not justifiable.
