ORDER

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-4 [ld. PCIT, in short] dated 17.03.2025 in Revision No. PCIT, Delhi-4/Revision-263/100000777938/2025 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) revising the Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 17.09.2022 for AY 2020-21.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 17.03.2025, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-4 ['Ld. PCIT'], under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') setting aside the assessment to be made de novo being without jurisdiction and unlawful is void ab initio and deserves to be quashed.

2. That the Ld. PCIT erred on facts and in law in exercising revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act on issues in the impugned order, without satisfying the twin jurisdictional conditions of the assessment order being: (a) erroneous; and (b) prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and consequently, the impugned order being unlawful deserves to be quashed.

3. That the Ld. PCIT erred in setting aside the assessment order by exercising powers undersection 263 of the Act, without appreciating that: (a) it was not a case of lack of enquiry on any of the issues raised; (b) the view taken by the assessing officer in respect of the various issues was, in any case, a plausible view; and (c) revisionary proceedings under section 263 could not be initiated on a mere 'difference of view'.

4. That the PCIT erred in setting aside the assessment order on certain issues (ground nos. 5 to 6), with vague directions, without even recording any prima facie findings on merits, thereby, not demonstrating how and why the final assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, qua such issues.

5. That on the facts and circumstances of the facts as well as in law, the Ld. PCIT has erred in alleging that the appellant has violated the provisions of Section 269T of the Act and therefore liable for penalty under section 271E of the Act without considering the facts and binding judgements including that of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court at Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. [2004] 139 Taxman 115/[2003] 262 ITR 260 (Delhi).

5.1 In any case and without prejudice, penalty proceedings u/s 271E being independent of assessment proceedings, non-consideration of provisions of section 269T in the assessment order have no bearing on assessed income and assessed tax thereby having no prejudice to the interest of revenue.

6. That the Ld. PCIT has erred in invoking the provisions of Section 263 in respect of various expenses claimed without considering the submissions and without mentioning as to how any of such expense is not allowable which were allowed by the Ld. AO after necessary verification and application of mind.

6.1 That the Ld. PCIT failed to appreciate that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act could not be initiated merely to: (a) conduct vague/ roving enquiries; or (b) authorize the assessing officer to conduct roving/ fishing enquiries, by merely setting aside the assessment.

7. That the Grounds of Appeal as herein are without prejudice to each other.”

3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee filed its return of income for Asst. Year 2020-21 on 08.02.2021 declaring total loss of Rs. 39,49,687/-. The assessment was completed in terms of the order passed on 17.09.2022, wherein after examining the details filed by the assessee in response to notices issued from time to time, loss declared by the assessee was accepted. Thereafter ld. PCIT, based on the Revenue audit objection that assessee has received loans of Rs.1,48,50,000/- in violation of provisions of 269SS of the Act and thus, liable for penalty u/s 271D of the Act. Further the Revenue had poi