Merely because the inquiries were not done in a particular manner, the same would not make assessment order expose to revisional jurisdiction u/s 263.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“G” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND
HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode)

I.T.A. No.2308/Mum/2019
Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Sky Gem
CC-2081, Bharat Diamond Bourse
BKC, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400 051
Appellant

Vs.

Pr. CIT-33
C-12, 5th Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhavan
BKC Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051.
PAN/GIR No. AAYFS-8765-J
Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Suchek Anchaliya-Ld. AR
Revenue by : Shri S.C.Tiwari- Ld. CIT DR

Date of Hearing : 13/01/2021
Date of Pronouncement : 13/01/2021

O R D E R

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1. By way of this appeal, the assessee challenges the validity ofrevisional jurisdiction u/s 263 as exercised by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-33, Mumbai [in short referred to as ‘Pr.CIT’], for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2014-15, vide order dated 29/03/2019. The effective grounds taken by the assessee read as under:-

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT erred in setting aside the assessment order u/s 263 of the Act without fully appreciating the facts of the case.

2. The learned CIT erred in setting aside the assessment order u/s 263 of the Act even though the impugned transactions were confirmed by the concerned parties in response to notice u/s 133(6). at on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT, Bikaner erred in not recording own satisfaction in respect of assessment order passed by the Id AO is erroneous so as it prejudicial the interest of revenue as per provision of section 263 of the Act.

3. The action of learned CIT is nothing but change of opinion, which cannotbe a ground for invoking the provisions of Sec.263 as a conscious decisionsupported by reasons and with full application of mind by the AO cannot said to be erroneous.

4. The learned CIT erred in not considering the submission of the appellant vide its letter dated 09.07.2018.

5. The learned CIT erred in his observation that the learned AO wrongly made addition on adhoc basis @3% of the alleged bogus purchases without any justification and reason which is factually incorrect in as much as the learned AO in his order vide para 8.8 on page 10 has, discussed and stated the reasons why he was adopting 3% addition.

6. The learned CIT erred in ignoring various judicial pronouncements especially of the jurisdictional Hon. ITAT, Mumbai on this issue.

To know more in details find the attachment file