Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
M/S Indian Explosives Private Limited, ... vs Pr.Cit-4, Kolkata on 17 September, 2021
1
ITA No. 1265/Kol/2019
Indian Explosives Pvt. Ltd.,
AY 2014-15
आयकर अपील य अधीकरण, यायपीठ -"A" कोलकाता,
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH: KOLKATA
[Before Hon'ble Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Hon'ble Shri Manish Borad, AM]
I.T.A. No. 1265/Kol/2019
Assessment Year: 2014-15
Indian Explosives Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata
(PAN: AAACI 6548 N)
Appellant Respondent
Date of Hearing (Virtual) 07.09.2021
Date of Pronouncement 17.09.2021
For the Appellant Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent Shri Manish Kanojia, CIT
ORDER
Per Shri A. T. Varkey, JM:
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee company against the order of Ld. PCIT-4, Kolkata passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 07.02.2019 for Assessment year 2014-15.
2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under:
That on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law;
1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT grossly erred in initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the order passed by the AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and therefore the proceedings are bad in law and void ab- initio.
2. In doing so, the Ld. PCIT erred in not recording a conclusive finding that the assessment order of AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, which is pre-requisite for initiation of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act.
The above grounds are without prejudice to each other.
The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.
2 ITA No. 1265/Kol/2019Indian Explosives Pvt. Ltd., AY 2014-15
3. From the aforesaid ground nos. 1 and 2 it is discerned that the assessee is raising legal issue as to the jurisdiction of the Ld. PCIT to invoke Section 263 of the Act.
4. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Ld. PCIT is that the assessee company filed its return of income dated 29.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 9,14,26,540/-. Later the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act 26.12.2016 determining the total income at Rs. 10,09,57,307/-. According to the Ld. PCIT on verification of the assessment records he found that the order of the assessment was erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the following grounds:
(a) It is seen that as per 26AS statement total interest income of the assessee was Rs. 8,10,93,121/-. However, as per accounts and computation of income total interest income was to the tune of Rs. 8,00,14,210/-. Hence, the AO failed to reconcile or add the difference during the course of assessment proceedings.
(b) It further appears from 26AS statement that there were other incomes in the nature of contractual, commission, technical etc. Though no separate heads of incomes are available in the P & L accounts, it appears that all such incomes were clubbed under 'Miscellaneous income' under Sch. 16. However, as per 26AS total receipts were of Rs. 1,32,40,556/- as against disclosed income of Rs. 78 Lakhs (approx). Hence the AO failed to reconcile or add the difference during the course of assessment proceedings.
(c) Deduction of TDS u/s 194IA of the Act in the Form 26AS suggests sale of any immovable property other than agricultural land. However, no capital gain/loss was booked on account of such sale. Neither fixed asset statement of the assessee indicates any such sale.
(d) It is seen that the assessee made adjustments on account of arms length mark up. However, the case was not referred to TPO. As per Para 3.2 of CBDT's Instruction No. 3 of 2016, the instant case had to be mandatorily referred to the TPO (the Transfer Pricing Officer) by the AO after obtaining the approval of Principal CIT. However, the AO has completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2016 without referring the matter to Transfer Pricing Officer.
(e) One of the reasons for selection of the case in scrutiny was verification of Commission Payment. However, the same was not verified by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings.3 ITA No. 1265/Kol/2019
Indian Explosives Pvt. Ltd., AY 2014-15 According to the Ld. PCIT, he issued show cause notice (SCN) to the assessee on 16.05.2017 requiring it to submit clarification and explanation to the aforesaid issues and has to show cause as to why he should not invoke revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act for the reason cited (supra) against the assessment order dated 26.12.2016. The Ld. PCIT notes that the assessee had filed written submission which he reproduced from page no. 2 to 10 of the impugned order. Thereafter, the Ld. PCIT has expressed his dissatisfaction with the explanation by the submission given by the assessee and held as under (relevant portion only):
"4.1. In my considered opinion this is a case of lack of enquiry on the part of the AO. The decision on all above discussed issues could be taken only after examining and verifying the facts/submissions of the A.R. Not collecting the full facts and not taking enquires on all above issues to logical end which could enable AO to take decision based on the totality of facts makes this order erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. After having considered the position of law and facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in accordance with the Explanation 2(c ) below section 263(1) of the Act. The AO is directed to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee company to produce documents and evidences which it may choose to rely upon for substantiating its own claim. Thereafter a fresh assessment order may be passed in accordance with the relevant provisions of law.
5. ......................
5.1. ........................
5.2. .............................
5.3. In view of the facts and the legal position stated above, I am of the view that the order passed on an incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law and without making requisite inquiries will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning and scope of Section 253 of the Act.
The aforesaid decisions postulate that when the officer is expected to make an inquiry of a particular item of income and if he does not make an inquiry as expected, that would be a ground for the Commissioner to interfere with the order passed by the Officer since such an order passed by the Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Re (K. A. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs. CIT (1996) 220 ITR 657).
6. I have carefully considered the submission made on behalf of the assessee and perused the material available on record and found that the issues pointed out in the show cause needs verification, as AO merely accepted primary information related to issues of scrutiny without calling for logically relevant material/evidences in order to have an overview of totality of facts and circumstances, during the course of assessment order erroneous on the ground of lack of enquiry. After having considered the position of law and facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue in accordance with the Explanation 2(c ) below section 263(1) of the Act on the ground of lack of enquiry. Accordingly, the assessment dated 22.01.2016 passed u/s 4 ITA No. 1265/Kol/2019 Indian Explosives Pvt. Ltd., AY 2014-15 263/143(3) is set aside de-novo on specific issues as outlined in above para 2 with a direction to AO to cause adequate and effective enquiry. The AO is directed to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee company to produce documents & evidences which it may choose to rely upon for substantiating its own claim. Thereafter a fresh assessment order may be passed in accordance with the relevant provisions of law."
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Ld. PCIT to interdict the assessment order passed by the AO dated 26.12.2016 on the grounds of lack of enquiry, the assessee has preferred this appeal raising grounds of appeal supra wherein the assessee challenges the jurisdiction of the Ld. PCIT to have invoked the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act without satisfying condition precedent as required u/s 263 of the Act i.e. without holding validly that the AO's order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the revenue.
6. Before we advert to the facts and law involved in this lis before us, let us revise the law governing the issue before us. The assessee has challenged in the first place, the very usurpation of jurisdiction by Ld. Principal CIT to invoke his revisional powers enjoyed u/s 263 of the Act. Therefore, first we have to see whether the requisite jurisdiction necessary to assume revisional jurisdiction is existing in this case before the Pr. CIT rightfully exercised his revisional power. For that, we have to examine as to whether in the first place the order of the Assessing Officer found fault by the Principal CIT is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. For that, let us take the guidance of judicial precedence laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC) wherein their Lordship have held that twin conditions needs to be satisfied before exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the CIT. The twin conditions are that the order of the Assessing Officer must be erroneous and so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the following circumstances, the order of the AO can be held to be erroneous order, that is (i) if the Assessing Officer's order was passed on incorrect assumption of fact; or (ii) incorrect application of law; or (iii)Assessing Officer's order is in violation of the principle of natural justice; or (iv) if the order is passed by the Assessing Officer was without application of mind; (v) if the AO has not investigated the issue before him; [because AO has to discharge dual role of an investigator as well as that of an adjudicator] then in aforesaid any event the order passed by the Assessing Officer can be termed as erroneous order. Coming next to the second limb, which is required to be 5 ITA No. 1265/Kol/2019 Indian Explosives Pvt. Ltd., AY 2014-15 examined as to whether the actions of the AO can be termed as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. When this aspect is examined one has to understand what is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries (supra) held that this phrase i.e. "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue'' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Their Lordship held that it has to be remembered that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. When the Assessing Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss to the revenue, or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue "unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law".
7. In the light of the aforesaid binding and well settled judicial precedent when we examine the case of the assessee as to whether the Ld. PCIT's action of invoking revisional jurisdiction in respect of five (5) faults brought out in the show cause notice (SCN) by the Ld. PCIT can be held as erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. According to Ld. PCIT though the assessee pursuant to the show cause notice issued by him dated 16.05.2017 had given certain explanation/clarification on the five (5) faults pointed out by him in the SCN, still these facts/clarifications/explanation have not been enquired/verified into or brought to the notice of the AO during the assessment proceedings. According to Ld. PCIT on these five (5) faults, there was lack of enquiry by the AO during the assessment proceedings. According to Ld. PCIT since the AO has not enquired into the five (5) faults/issues brought out in his SCN; the order of the AO is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the Revenue. Moreover according to Ld. PCIT though the issue of commission payment made by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 3,39,92,698/- was initially selected for scrutiny under CASS, still the AO has not conducted any enquiry by even calling for the details related to the commission expenses. And according to Ld. PCIT , when the issue of transfer pricing is arising there in the return of income, and once the AO is conducting scrutiny assessment as per CBDT binding instructions on the same should have been examined by the AO.
6 ITA No. 1265/Kol/2019Indian Explosives Pvt. Ltd., AY 2014-15 Therefore he concluded that on the five (5) issues pointed out by him in the SCN, this was a case of lack of enquiry on the part of the AO therefore he held at para 5.3 that he was of the view that AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. Therefore he set aside the order for de-novo assessment on the five (5) issues as outlined in para 2 (SCN) with the direction to the AO to conduct effective enquiry after giving opportunity to the assessee.
8. Assailing the aforesaid action of Ld PCIT, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee Shri Ravi Sharma submitted that the AO had gone through the tax audit report, therefore the faults pointed out by the Ld. PCIT in his SCN numbered as (a), (b) and (c) and which are emanating from a perusal of the Form 26AS, have been looked into by the AO and therefore it can be presumed that the AO has gone through the issues raised by the Ld. PCIT and since AO being satisfied, has not taken any adverse view against the assessee. In order to buttress his argument that the AO has gone through the contents of Form 26AS, the Ld. A.R drew our attention to page no.2 of assessment order wherein the disallowance of leave encashment has been made wherein the AO has specifically stated that he has perused to tax audit report (Clause-21/Enclosure-12) to make disallowance of leave encashment; and thereafter he drew our attention to page no. 4 wherein the AO has discussed about employees contribution to PF of the ESI wherein the AO has also stated to have examined the Tax Audit Report (SL. No. 16(b) to Form No. 3CD). Thus according to Ld. A.R., the AO has gone through the contents of the tax audit report and so it cannot be said that the AO has not enquired about these three (3) issues (a, b & c) stated in SCN of Ld. PCIT supra. Next according to Ld. A.R, on a perusal of the page 3 of the assessment order it shows that the disallowance of club expenses was made after perusal of the profit and loss account. Therefore, according to Ld. A.R. the issue of commission expenses must have been taken note of by the AO when he went through the P&L account and being satisfied has not drawn any adverse inference against the assessee. So according to Ld. A.R. the AO's action cannot be termed as erroneous. Next according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. PCIT erred in referring to para 3.2 of CBDT's Instruction No. 2/2016 which the AO is mandatorily required to refer to the TPO the arms length adjustment in respect of issues relating to 7 ITA No. 1265/Kol/2019 Indian Explosives Pvt. Ltd., AY 2014-15 transfer pricing of international taxation or specified domestic transaction only if specific criteria's are satisfied and since the assessee's case does not fall in the ken of that instructions the AO need not refer it to TPO. According to AO, this assessment year in question i.e. AY 2014-15 therefore the Instruction No. 3/2016 was erroneously taken aid by the Ld. PCIT to interdict the AO's order which is bad in law. Thus according to Ld. AR, since the AO has gone through the tax audit report and profit and loss account the faults/issues pointed out by the Ld. PCIT in his show cause notice issued for invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law for want of jurisdiction.
9. Further according to Ld. A.R. during the revisional proceedings before the Ld. PCIT the assessee had brought all materials/documents to show that the AO's view (not to take any adverse view) in respect of five (5) issues were not dealt by the Ld. PCIT by giving specific findings as to whether the AO's action is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue and for that he cited the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. reported in (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del) and drew our attention to para 17 to 19 of the order which reads as under:
17. This distinction must be kept in mind by the CIT while exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and in the absence of the finding that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, exercise of Jurisdiction under the said section is not sustainable. In most cases of alleged "inadequate investigation", it will be difficult to hold that the order of the Assessing Officer, who had conducted enquiries and had acted as an investigator, is erroneous, without CIT conducting verification/inquiry. The order of the Assessing Officer may be or may not be wrong. CIT cannot direct reconsideration on this ground but only when' the order is erroneous. An order of remit cannot be passed by the CIT to ask the Assessing Officer to decide whether the order was erroneous. This is not permissible. An order is not erroneous, unless the CIT hold and records reasons why it is erroneous. An order will not become erroneous because on remit, the Assessing Officer may decide that the order is erroneous. Therefore CIT must after recording reasons hold that the order is erroneous. The jurisdictional precondition stipulated is that the CIT must come to the conclusion that the order is erroneous and is unsustainable in law. We may notice that the material which the CIT can rely includes not only the record as it stands at the time when the tender in question was passed by the Assessing Officer but also the record as it stands at the time of examination by the CIT [see CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing & Products Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53 / 98 Taxman I SC)]. Nothing bars/probibits the CIT from collecting and relying upon new/additional material/evidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous.
18. It is in this context that the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, [2000] 243 ITR 83 / 109 Taxman 66 (SC), had observed that the phrase 'prejudicial to the interest of Revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an 8 ITA No. 1265/Kol/2019 Indian Explosives Pvt. Ltd., AY 2014-15 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 interest of Revenue. Thus, when the Assessing Officer had adopted one of the courses permissible and available to him, and this has resulted in loss to Revenue; or two views were possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the CIT may not agree; the said orders cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. In such matters, the CIT must give a finding that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and, therefore, the order is erroneous. He must also show that prejudice is caused to the interest of the Revenue.
19. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has not gone into and has not given any reason for observing that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous. The finding recorded the CIT is that "order passed by the Assessing Officer may be erroneous". The CIT had doubts about the valuation and sale consideration received but the CIT should have examined the said aspect himself and given a finding that the order-passed by the Assessing Officer-was erroneous. He came-to-the-conclusion and finding that the Assessing Officer had examined the said aspect and accepted the respondent's computation figures but he had reservations. The CIT in the order has recorded that the consideration receivable was examined by the Assessing Officer but was not properly examined and therefore the assessment order is "erroneous". The said finding will be correct. If the CIT had examined and verified the said transaction himself and given a finding on merits. As held above, a distinction must be drawn in the cases where the AO does not conduct an enquiry; as lack of enquiry by itself renders the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and cases where the AO conducts enquiry but finding recorded is erroneous and which is also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In latter cases, the CIT has to examine the order of the AO on merits or the decision taken by the AO on merits and then hold and form an opinion on merits that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the second set of cases, CIT cannot direct the AO to conduct further enquiry to verify and find out whether the order passed is erroneous or not.
According to Ld. A.R. since the AO has gone through the tax audit report and profit and loss account the AO should be presumed to have gone through the details and being satisfied has taken a plausible view and in case if the Ld. PCIT still feels that there is a case of inadequate enquiry then he should have gone through the materials/documents submitted by the assessee before him (during revisional proceedings) and should have dealt with each issues on merits and demonstrated as to how the AO's order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the revenue. And without satisfying that this twin condition is exists on each of the issues found fault, the Ld. PCIT ought not to have interfered with the order of the AO and interdicted the same. Therefore according to Ld. A.R. the Ld. PCIT lacks jurisdiction to invoke revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and therefore the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT need to be quashed.
9 ITA No. 1265/Kol/2019Indian Explosives Pvt. Ltd., AY 2014-15
10. Per contra, the Ld. CITDR Shri Manish Kanojia, submitted that even though the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny which also included commission payment of Rs. 3,39,92,698/- the AO did not even make any enquiry and has accepted the claim as Gospel truth and allowed the claim. According to the Ld. CITDR on other four (4) issues also the AO did not even bother to make any enquiry on these issues also which makes the order of the AO per-se erroneous as well as prejudicial to the revenue. According to Ld. CITDR the AO has to discharge the dual role of an investigator as well as that of an adjudicator and if he fails in any one of this issue it would vitiate/make the order of the AO on these issues erroneous as well as prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, according to Ld. CITDR on the five (5) issues pointed out by the Ld. PCIT in his SCN while invoking his power under Section 263 of the Act, the Ld. PCIT was satisfied that AO has not made any enquiry at all therefore he has rightly invoked revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act which need not be interfered by us. He also pointed out that the case law relied upon by the assessee in D.G. Housing supra is not applicable in the facts of the case and is distinguishable. According to Ld. CITDR's the observations of the Hon'ble High Court was made in that case in the light of the fact that it was a case wherein AO had enquired into the issues and therefore it was not a case of lack of enquiry but it was a case of inadequate enquiry, which is not what happened in assessee's case. In assessee's case there was no enquiry by the AO, so it is not a case of inadequate enquiry. So the observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is not applicable to the case of the present assessee. So the Ld. CITDR does not want us to interfere with the order of Ld. PCIT.
11. Having heard both sides and after perusal of the records we find that on the five (5) issues pointed out by the Ld. PCIT in his SCN supra (a, b, c, d & e) at para 3 of this order, the AO in his scrutiny assessment order has not made any enquiry as rightly pointed out by the Ld. CITDR. It is settled position of law that the AO while assessing an assessee has to discharge the dual role of an investigator as well as that of an adjudicator, and if he fails in any one of this issue it will make the order on these issues erroneous as well as prejudicial to the revenue. Even though we asked the Ld. A.R. as to whether there was any material to suggest/show that AO has enquired into the any of the five (5) issues pointed out by the Ld. 10 ITA No. 1265/Kol/2019 Indian Explosives Pvt. Ltd., AY 2014-15 PCIT, the Ld. A.R. expressed his helplessness in this regard. The Ld. A.R.'s submission is the AO has gone through the tax audit report and the three faults/three issues (a, b & c) emanates from tax audit report, it should be presumed that the AO has enquired into the same and being satisfied has not drawn any adverse inference against the assessee on these three(3) issues.. We do not accept such a broad contention of the Ld. A.R. of the assessee. We find that the AO has not made any enquiry into the issue raised by the Ld. PCIT. On specific query as to whether the commission payment made by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 3,39,92,698/- was specifically selected for scrutiny and whether this issue was enquired into by the AO, the Ld. A.R failed to show us from PB as to whether the AO has enquired into it or not. Thus we find this is a case wherein on the five (5) issues pointed out by the Ld. PCIT, the AO has not made any enquiry at all. Thus it is a case of lack of enquiry. The case law relied upon by the Ld. A.R. is not of any assistance to the assessee's case because in D.G. Housing (supra) that was a case wherein there was enquiry by the AO therefore it was a case of no adequate enquiry. And further we respectfully agree with the proposition laid by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing (supra) that when there has been an enquiry conducted by the AO on an issue which later on the Ld. PCIT felt to have not been enquired properly/inadequate enquiry by the AO, then the Ld. PCIT, in such a scenario should enquire by himself and should point out as to how & where the AO has gone wrong in his enquiry and should return a finding as to how the view of the AO was unsustainable in law. Therefore, the case law relied upon by the Ld. A.R is not applicable to the facts of the case.
12. The Ld. A.R. thereafter made a feeble attempt to show that para 2.3 on CBDT's instruction NO. 2/2016 dated 10.03.2016 was not applicable in this case for AY 2014-15. We note that instruction of such nature is procedural in nature i.e. when there is a transfer pricing issue before the AO, he is duty bound to examine as to whether the criteria spelled out in the CBDT circular/instruction is fulfilled or not and then to take a decision whether to refer the same to TPO or not and therefore it would take immediate effect from 10.03.2016 onwards. We note that AO has passed the assessment order on 26.12.2016 and it is not the 11 ITA No. 1265/Kol/2019 Indian Explosives Pvt. Ltd., AY 2014-15 case of the assessee that the CBDT instruction no. 3/2016 has been passed after 26.12.2016. Therefore we do not find any merit in the contention of the assessee.
13. The only other issue which has been pointed by the Ld. A.R. is that the Ld. PCIT erred in taking the aid of Explanation 2(c) below section 263(1) of the Act which is applicable only from AY 2015-16. Even if we agrees to the contention of the Ld. A.R. of the assessee that Explanation 2(c ) below section 263(1) of the Act is not applicable for AY 2014-15, still it does not in any way make any impact on the finding made by the Ld. PCIT that the AO has not enquired into the five (5) issues raised by him in the SCN and since we have concurred with the same, even if we discard explanation 2 (c) below section 263 of the Act it does not help the assessee's contention. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid discussion we uphold the action of the Ld. PCIT to have invoked Section 263 of the Act to interdict the assessment order dated 26.12.2016. The assessee's appeal fails.
14. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed Order is pronounced in the open court on 17th September, 2021.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Manish Borad) (A. T. Varkey)
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Dated: 17.09.2021
SB, Sr. PS
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Appellant- Indian Explosives pvt. Ltd., Apeejay House, Block-C, 6th Floor, 15, Park Street, Kolkata-700016.
2. Respondent - PCIT-4, Kolkata
3. CIT(A)- Kolkata
4. CIT- Kolkata
5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail) True Copy By Order Assistant Registrar/DDO ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata