IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM.

&

DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.376 & 377/RJT/ 2024 ((cid:11)नधा(cid:15)रणवष (cid:15) / Assessment Year: (2014-15& 2015-16)

(Hybrid Hearing)

Leader Electric Co. Vs. The PCIT – 1, Dindayal Industries Estates, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Aji Vasahat, Opp. Gamara Hostel, Road, Rajkot - 360003 Rajkot – 360001 (cid:19)थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AADFL6072C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : ShriD. M. Rindani, Ld. AR Respondent by : ShriSanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT (DR)

Date of Hearing :22/01 /2025 Date of Pronouncement :28/02 /2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM:

This is assessee’s appeal preferred against the order dated 26.03.2024 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') by the Ld. Pr. C.I.T., Rajkot – 1.

In ITA No. 376/Rjt/2024 for assessment year 2014-15. The Ld. Pr. CIT, in the impugned order, has held that the Assessing Officer did not conduct inquiries/verification that he should have done before passing the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, on 27.03.2022.

And In ITA No. 377/Rjt/2024 for assessment year 2015-16. The Ld. Pr. CIT, in the impugned order, has held that the Assessing Officer did not conduct inquiries/verification that he should have done before passing the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, on27.03.2022.

It has been held by the Ld. Pr. CIT in both the assessment order is erroneous in as much as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Vide the impugned order, the Ld. Pr. CIT has cancelled assessment and has directed the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment order after making necessary inquiries related to Transactionsbetween the assessee and M/s. National Shroff & Co.

2. Grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 376/Rjt/2024 (AY 2014-15) are as follows:

1. The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tac -1, Rajkot erred in holding that the assessment order dated 27.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest or revenue and thus erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, in the light of show cause notice and the order passed u/s. 2 63 of the Act and hence the impugned order is bad in law.

2. The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income tac-1, Rajkot erred in setting aside the assessment order framed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by holding that the AO did not conduct any inquiries in respect of cash transactions of Rs. 34,68,879/- alleged to be carried out by the Appellant with M/s. National Shroff.

3. The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income tax -1, Rajkot failed to appreciate that the impugned issue was duly examined by the AO by way of specific inquiry/notice and replied thereto, while finalizing assessment proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and hence there is no lack of inquiry thereon.

4. The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Rajkot erred in improving upon the issue on which the appellant was show cause and further erred in passing order u/s. 263 on issues not confronted to the appellant and hence no this ground also, the order u/s. 263 is bad in law.

5. The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of IT-1, Rajkot failed to appreciate the contention of the appellant raised before him that the underlying order u/s. 147 itself was bad in law and therefore it was not amenable to revision u/s. 263 of the Act.

6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal.

3.Grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 377/Rjt/2024 (AY 2015-16) are as follows:

1. The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tac -1, Rajkot erred in holding that the assessment order dated 27.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest or revenue and thus erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, in the light of show cause notice and the order passed u/s. 2 63 of the Act and hence the impugned ord