Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Therefore invoking Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act the assessment order dated 26.12.2018 passed by the A.O. is an erroneous order and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore a detail show cause notice dated 17.09.2019 issued to the assessee calling upon its objection by giving opportunity of being heard.

2.5. The assessee vide its reply dated 09.12.2020 submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment on four points, the reasons mentioned does not include verification of unsecured loans, therefore A.O. was not required to verification the unsecured loans. However the assessee company submitted the evidences to substantiate the unsecured loans taken from various parties. The loan parties are the Relatives and family members of I.T.A No. 59/Rajkot/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 6 Metropole Tiles Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT the Director of the assessee company and also belong to the same community. For this reason, even though interest has not been paid on the unsecured loans, due to this being the first year of the assessee company. Regarding the allegation of the bank statements of shareholders are not visible or are incomplete, unsigned. The assessee replied that complete details have been submitted to the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings by uploading the same. This alone would not be legal ground to initiate revision proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act especially when the assessee submitted every details before the Assessing Officer. However a hard copy of all the documents related to the shareholders are submitted before Ld. PCIT. The next allegation of some of the shareholders have invested in assessee company which is more than 10 to 30 times of their annual income. The assessee submitted that it is a normal business practice from all over the world to invest in shares of companies by borrowing from either family members, friends or from banks & financial institutions. The law does not stipulate that a shareholder can invest in share of company only out of his current annual income, whereas the shareholder can also borrow money from others and invest in shares. Therefore this cannot be a reason to revise the assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. Regarding the Supreme Court judgment in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 103 Taxmann.com 48 (SC). The facts of the judgment is in relation to shareholder companies based in Kolkata which were just paper companies whose director could not be produced before the A.O. for verification. That the said judgment will not be applicable to the I.T.A No. 59/Rajkot/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 7 Metropole Tiles Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT facts of the assessee's case. When the assessing officer considered the submission of the assessee it cannot be held that the A.O. did not examine the allowability of the claim by proper inquiry and in such case the assessment order neither suffers from 'lack of inquiry' nor any error on this count. The Ld. CIT does not have unfettered power to initiate revisional proceedings by re-examining and directing a change by taking different view and if he himself is not able to form opinion, then he cannot direct another enquiry by the assessing officer by invoking powers under section 263 of the Act and relied upon in the case of DLF Infocity Developers (Chennai) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2013) 37 taxmann.com 311 and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. International Travel House Ltd. (2010) 194 Taxmann.com 324. The assessee further submitted that the assessee company has responded further query raised by the A.O., merely because the said aspect is not reflected in the assessment order that would not mean the A.O. had not applied his mind and relied upon Bombay High Court judgment on this proportion, in the case of CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (2015) 230 Taxmna.com 641, CIT vs. Nirav Modi (2016) 71 Taxmann.com 272, and in the case of Ideal Cellular Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2008) 301 ITR 407 (Bombay). The submitted to drop the revision proceedings initiated u/s. 263 of the Act.