Jaguar Services Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that the view taken by AO was a plausible view and the same cannot be subjected to revision under Section 263 of the Act merely for the reasons that PCIT does not agree with the same. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
Facts- Assessee, a private limited company, was engaged in the business of business of advertising and trading of PVC and its derivatives (import and domestic sale). Reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act were initiated on the premise that the Assessee is one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entry of bogus purchase/sales. AO passed the Assessment Order, dated 19/03/2024, u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making disallowance of 6% of the total transaction value entered with MM9 and Witteneia.
Being aggrieved, the Assessee had preferred appeal before CIT(A). Thereafter, during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, PCIT issued notice u/s. 263(1) of the Act. In the said notice it was stated that the Assessing Officer had erred in relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Vrajendra Jagjivandas Thakkar vs. Income Tax Officer, without proper verification of facts and without considering applicability of other High Court judgments on the same issue and therefore, the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act.
