, , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण इंदौर (cid:586)ायपीठ इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.311/Ind/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery PCIT-1, Private Limited, Indore C/o Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, /

बनाम UG-37 Trade Centre, Vs.

18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

PAN: AAMCS1613G Assessee by Shri Hitesh Chimnani, AR Revenue by Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by revision-order dated 18.03.2024 passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Indore-1 [“PCIT”] u/s 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 29.03.2022 passed by learned NFAC, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the act for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 on the same issue, which was subjectmatterofappealbefore CITAppeals.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble PCIT without properly appreciating the facts of the case, erred in alleging that the orderu/s. 147 r.w.s 144 ofthe Act is notonly erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the Assessing Officer has failedtoconductany inquiry and verificationwhichis patently incorrect.

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT erred in treating the order passed by the Id. AO as erroneous simply because he harboredadifferentview than thatofthe Id.AO. The view adopted by the Id. AO was one of the possible views duly fortified by decisions of Hon'ble ITAT, duly quoted in the order itself. The exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under the facts of the case, by the Ld. PCIT, is thus not legal and proper.Thus,the impugnedorderis bad inlaw and needs tobe quashed.

4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, or withdraw any of the grounds ofappeals atthe time ofhearing.”

2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee filed its original return of income of relevant AY 2017-18 declaring a total income of Rs. 34,91,432/- which was subjected to scrutiny- assessment and the AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) vide order dated 17.12.2019 accepting the income returned by assessee. Subsequently, on the basis of certain incriminating information received from Investigation Wing through Insight Portal based on surveys conducted on 12.11.2018 on two different persons named M/s Krishna Gold (proprietor Shri Vankatesh Lodha) and M/s N.S. Jewellers & Bullion (proprietor Shri Shailesh Mehta) indicating that the assessee has received accommodation by way of bogus purchases of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- from M/s N.S. Jewellers & Bullion, the AO issued notice dated 31.03.2021 to re-open assessee’s case u/s 147 followed by notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1). In response, the assessee filed submission objecting to the re-opening of assessment as also claiming that the impugned purchases was a genuine purchase. However, the AO extracted the Survey Report dated 23.09.2020 forwarded by Investigation Wing on Page 3 to 13 of assessment-order and considered assessee’s submissions on Page 13 to 14 of assessment-order and finally rejecting the assessee’s objections made an addition of Rs. 19,37,500/- equivalent to 12.50% of alleged bogus purchase of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- while completing assessment of re-opened case vide order dated 29.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B and thereby re-assessing total income at Rs. 54,28,932/-.

3. Subsequently, Ld. PCIT examined the record of re-assessment proceeding and viewed that the impugned order of re-assessment dated 29.03.2022 passed by AO is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue which attract