आयकरअपील(cid:9)यअ(cid:10)धकरण,राजकोट(cid:17)यायपीठ,राजकोट।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA Nos.144/RJT/2023 (cid:24)नधा(cid:26)रणवष/(cid:26)Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Abroad Vitrified Pvt. Principal Commissioner of Ltd. बनाम Income-tax-1, Rajkot, Vs.

Survey No.279,Khokhra Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course, Hanuman Road, AT: Bela, Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 Morbi- 363642 (cid:1)थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.PAN/GIR No.:AAPCA4410 J (अपीलाथ(cid:17)/Appellant) .. ((cid:18)(cid:19)यथ(cid:17) /Respondent) (cid:20)नधा(cid:23)(cid:24)रतीक(cid:27)ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, AR /Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR राज(cid:1)वक(cid:27)ओरसे

सुनवाईक(cid:27)तार ख/Date of Hearing : 19/02/2025 घोषणाक(cid:27)तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 08/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M By way of this appeal, the assessee has challenged the correctness of the order dated 27.03.2023, passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Rajkot (in short “Ld PCIT”) under section 263 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year

2018-19.

2. Grievances raised by the assessee, are as follows:

“1. The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another.

2. The order passed by Pr. Commissioner of Income Rajkot-1[hereinafter referred as to the "Pr. CIT"] is bad and illegal and requires to be quashed.

3.The Ld. Pr. CIT erred in law and on facts in exercising revisional jurisdiction, ignoring the fact that assessing officer made full inquiry and satisfied with the reply/submission of the appellant and accordingly the order passed by Pr.CIT is required to be quashed and may kindly be quashed.

4. The learned Pr. CIT erred on facts as also in law in alleging that the order u/s 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the assessing officer had not made inquiry and verification in terms of provision of section 68 of the Act in respect of (1) equity share capital of Rs.8,60,95,000/-and (2) unsecured loan of Rs.2,33,90,000/-and thereby setting aside the order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 16.03.2021. The order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the learned Pr. CIT is totally unjustified on facts, as also in law therefore the same may kindly be quashed.

5. Your Honour's appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter, or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal.”

2. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is a private limited company.The assessee had e-filed return of income for assessment year(AY)) 2018-19, on 29.10.2018, declaring total income at Rs. NIL. Thereafter, the assessee`s case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS for the reasons to verify (i) Purchases shown in the ITR is less than the invoice value of imports shown in the export -import data and (i) Introduction of large capital or share capital in the year of incorporation. The assessment was completed, u/s143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, on

16.03.2021, without making any modifications in the Income Tax Return.

3. Later on, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, (in short “Ld PCIT”), exercised his jurisdiction, under section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.On verification of records, it was observed by Ld. PCIT that the assessee had introduced huge amount in the company in the form of Share Application Money amounting to Rs.12,10,00,000/-. One of the reasons for selection of case under scrutiny was introduction of large capital or share capital in the year of incorporation. Perusal of records revealed that the assessee had submitted details to prove the genuineness of the share capital so introduced. The share capital and unsecured loans received by the assessee from 61 persons and out of 61 persons, some 29 persons "did not have sufficient creditworthiness to make suc