Sufficient enquiries were made and in the absence of the original document, PCIT has failed to prove how the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous in the absence of any incriminating to prove the receipt of on-money

Held PCIT of opinion that the Assessing Officer despite having the possession of (1) Agreement to Sell and Minutes of the Board Meeting of G and not made the additions in the hands of the Assessee. (para 6.1) Perusal of the order passed by the Assessing Officer clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has sought the reply of the Assessee on both the points. Assessing Officer has made the enquiries and thereafter come to the conclusion that no addition can be made on the basis of the photocopy of the Agreement to Sell allegedly executed by A. Present case is not a case of no enquiry rather it is a case of adequate enquiry the PCIT, in the Show Cause Notice also mentioned that the enquiries were made by the Assessing Officer. However, he has mentioned that more enquiries were required to be made. The explanation 2 Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) provide that the order would be erroneous and prejudicial in the interest of Revenue if the order was passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been done. (para 6.3) However, in the present case, the enquiries and verification were made by the Assessing Officer Assesseee mentioned hereinabove. However, despite that the PCIT had mentioned that the enquiry should have been made from A as well as from the purchaser of the property regarding the monitoring consideration involved in the sale purchase of the property. Conclusion of the PCIT was erroneous as no addition can be made on the basis of dumb document namely the photocopy of the Agreement to Sell which did not bear the signature of the Assessee. (para 6.4) PCIT should himself have conducted the enquiry or causing to make such enquiries have passed the order under Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961). In the present case, despite the material available on record, no further enquiry were made by the PCIT and had simply relied upon the finding recorded by the CIT Appeal in the hands of co-owners. Sufficient enquiries were made and in the absence of the original document, which was not signed by the Assessee, in the absence of the GPA in favour of A and any other evidence proving the receipt of on- money at the time of registration of sale deed, it will not be possible for the Assessing Officer to make additions in the hands of the Assessee. PCIT has failed to prove how the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous in the absence of any incriminating to prove the receipt of on-money. Order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was without any jurisdiction and accordingly quashed. Assessee’s Appeals allowed . (para 6.6)

Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.

The present group of Appeals were filed by the Assesse feeling aggrieved by the order passed on 23.03.2017 for the assessment year 2010-2011 on the following grounds:-

I. That order passed u/s 263(1) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) by the Ld.Principal CIT- Ill, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to hold that the assessment order dated 30-03-2015 passed u/s 153C (of Income Tax Act, 1961) r.w.s. 153A (of Income Tax Rules, 1962) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interests of revenue.

II. That he was not justified to hold that the Ld. Assessing Officer framed the assessment without making any further inquiry, whereas the Ld. Assessing Officer had made specific querry regarding the alleged paper found from the possession of a third party.

2. The grounds in all the four Appeals are common. Therefore, we are taking the file of Santok Singh Brar I.T. No.206 of 2017 as a lead case. Date of Hearing 08.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 16.08.2021.

3. Brief facts:

3.1. A search and seizure under Section 132 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was conducted at the premises of M/s Godwin Group of Cases on 09.09.2010. During the course of search, certain documents pertaining to Assesse were found and the said documents were passed on to the Assessing Officer of the Assesse.On the basis of the information and after recording the satisfaction note, the case of the Assesse reopened under Section 153C (of Income Tax Act, 1961)read with Section 153A (of Income Tax Act, 1961).

3.2. Notice under Section 153C (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was issued to the Assesse on 28.10.2013 calling upon the Assesse to file the return of income for the assessment year 2010-11. In pursuant to the notice the return of income was filed by the Assesse through AR and it was submitted that the return were filed on 27.02.2010 be treated as return filed pursuant to the notice.

3.3. The Assessing Officer had issued the notice under Section 143(2) (of Income Tax Act, 1961)/142(1) along with the questionnaire dated 28.01.2015 on 02.02.2015. A Show Cause Notice dated 19.03.2015 was issued to the Assesse calling upon the various information from the Assesse. At page 3 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer mentioned as under:

“However, as per information available with this office in shape of an Agreement to Sell dated 28.03.2009 entered into Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa for himself and GPA of others with the abovesaid property through M/s Delhi Pb. Real Estate Private Limited, Sector-22 Chandigarh and Lali Associate of Mohali and the above-mentioned property was sold for a consideration of Rs.11,25,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Crore Twenty Five Lakhs only). Further, Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa has admitted that the copy of the receipt cum agreement to sell was with Bajwa Brothers and the same was found and seized from the office of Godwin Group at Greenwood City Meerut and hence these papers cannot be forged”

3.4. The Assesse filed Reply to the Show Cause Notice and denied the execution of any Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa. In paragraphs (iv) to (vi) of the Reply, it was mentioned as under:-

“ iv) Further in your notice, you have alleged that a Receipt cum Agreement to sell was executed by sh. Amarjit Singh Randhwa Acting for himself and GPA of other co-owner. It is submitted that assesses mentioned above have never appointed Sh. Amrjitsingh Randhawa as their GPA. The assesses never, executed any agreement to appointed Sh. Amarjit Singh Randhawa as their GPA. Thus, alleged Receipt cum agreement to sell cannot be used against the assesses on that basis. The assesses never executed any agreement to sell dated 28.03.2009 as alleged in your show cause notice. If you have such document which contained the signatures of the assesses, the same may kindly be also provided. However it is brought to your kind notice that the assesses have themselves executed the sale deed in the capacity of themselves which proves that no such GPA was ever given.

v) Your show cause notice has referred to a statement of Sh. Amarjit Singh Randhawa from perusal of the copy the document officially received from your office as per the request, it is submitted that Mr. Amarjit Singh Randhawa was admitted that he is holder of any Power of Attorney on behalf of assesses or has executed any agreement to sell on their behalf. Without prejudge to, above Mr. Amarjit singh Randhawa has denied the execution of any alleged receipt-cum- agreement to sell dated 28.03.2009.

vi) From the inspection of the documents in your possession officially allowed by you as per the request of the assesses, we have not found any document either in original or a photocopy signed by the assesses or any GPA document relating to the. assesses, which are being relied upon by you for framing the assessments in the case of the assessee.

4. Keeping in view the submissions made above, it is clear, that no addition/ assessments can be made on account of purported alleged document referred by you in your show cause notice. As there is no document in the possession of IT. Department /your office, which can conclusively proved at the above referred assesses have received a sum more than Rs. 5.5 crores i.e. registered deed value against the sale of the said property. The notice issued U/s. 153C (of Income Tax Act, 1961) is merely on presumptive basis without any legally acceptable documentary evidence against the assesses.”

3.5. The Assessing Officer had thereafter issued another Show Cause Notice on 25.03.2015 seeking the comments of the Assesse on the deal paper entered into Gurbachan Singh Brar with Great Value Infra.

3.6. The Assesse filed the reply on 26.03.2015 and submitted that the document given to the Assesse along with Show Cause Notice on 25.03.2015 was the minutes of Board of Director or M/s Great Value Infra Promoters Private Limited which was an internal matter of the company. Further, it was submitted that there was no sale purchase price mentioned on the said document.

3.7. In this AR had submitted that, appellant, during the course of assessment proceedings, denied the charge of the Learned Assessing Officer that the said property was actually sold for Rs. 11.25 crores on the following grounds:

i) The assessee does not know the source of the purported alleged documents in the possession of the Department. However, it is submitted that the same has not been found or seized from the personal possession of the assessee or from any place owned by the assessee by any income tax authority or any other authority under the law. Thus, the alleged document and its contents do not have any relation to the assessee.

ii) The alleged document is a photocopy only and as per various judicial decision, photocopy unless it is duly signed in original has no value in the eyes of law.

Reliance is placed on Pepsi Co India Holdings Private Limited vs. ACIT of Income Tax 270 CTR 467 (Delhi) and also of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Sidhu Rice and General Mills reported in 281 ITR page 428.

iii) Further, the alleged document does not contain the signatures of any of the assessees referred above. Hence, no action against the assessee can be taken on such document, which do not pertain to them.

iv) Further, it has been alleged that a Receipt cum Agreement to Sell was executed by Sh. Amarjit Singh Randhawa acting for himself and GPA of other co-owner. It is submitted that assesses mentioned above have never appointed Sh. Amarjit Singh Randhawa as their GPA. The assesses never executed any agreement to appoint Sh. Amarjit Singh Randhawa as their GPA. Thus, alleged Receipt cum Agreement to Sell cannot be used against the assesses on that basis. The assesses never executed any agreement to sell dated 28.03.2009 as alleged in your show cause notice. If you have such document which contained the signatures of the assesses, the same may kindly be also provided. However, it is brought to your kind notice that the assesses have themselves executed the sale deed in the capacity of themselves which proves that no such GPA was ever given.

v) Your Show Cause Notice has referred to a statement of Sh. Amarjit Singh Randhawa. From perusal of the copy of the document officially received from the Assessing Officer, it is submitted that nowhere Mr. Amarjit Singh Randhawa was admitted that he is holder of any Power of Attorney on behalf of the assesses or has executed any agreement to sell on their behalf. Without prejudice to above, Mr. Amarjit Singh Randhawa has denied the execution of any alleged receipt cum agreement to sell dated 28.03.2009.

vi) From the inspection of the documents in the possession of the Ld. Assessing Officer, officially allowed by him as per the request of the assesses, we have not found any document either in original or a photocopy signed by the assesses or any GPA document relating to the assesses, which is now also being relied upon by Your Honour for framing the assessments in the case of the assesses.

vii) After appreciating the contentions of the petitioner assessee during the course of original assessment proceedings, the Ld. Assessing Officer had framed the assessment after obtaining the approval of the Ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 153D (of Income Tax Act, 1961). It will be wrong to observe that the Ld. Assessing Officer did not conduct any enquiry whatsoever before accepting the returned income. It can clearly be observed from submissions made above that the Ld. Assessing Officer did conduct enquiries and after having felt satisfied with the reply of the petitioner assessee, assessment was framed by him.

3.8. The Assessing Officer after making the adequate enquiry have accepted the return of income filed by the Assesse by passing the assessment order on 30.03.2015. In the penultimate paragraph, the Assessing Officer had mentioned that “It is quite possible that Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa might have received the money over and above in entirety and without the knowledge of the Assesse. As per the document it appears that the entire money is over and above the amount mentioned in the Sale Deed has been received by Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa individually.In my opinion, the entire amount should be assessed in the case of Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa in his individual capacity unless he produce GPA in original and/or other documents evidence to the contrary.”

3.9. The Principal CIT had issued the Show Cause Notice on 14.02.2017 and in the Show Cause Notice it was mentioned in paragraphs 4 to 7 as under:-

4. The Assessing Officer was also in possession of the information that an agreement dated 28.03.2009, to sell the above-referred immovable property, entered into by Sh. Amarjeet Singh Randhawa (Who is one of the co-owners in purchase as well as sale of above property) for himself and GPA of others (which includes yourself along with other co-owners) with S. Bhupinder Singh Bajwa, Sia Late Sh. Gurbachan Singh, A-134, Defence Colony, Merrut, UP through M/s Delhi /Pb. Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Sec-22 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), Chandigarh and Lally Associates of Phase- 5,Mohali. As per this agreement, this property was to be sold/or a consideration of Rs.11,25,00,000/-. Documentary evidence of this agreement to sell is placed on record which has been signed by the sellers/purchasers alongwith witnesses. Further, there is another document which is minutes of meeting of Board Directors of Great Value infrapromoters Pvt. Ltd wherein the purchasers have authorized their representative to finalize the deal.

The Assessing Officer has vide notice under section 142(1) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) has asked you to file the details of immovable properties acquired by you. On 16.03.2015, the Assessing Officer confronted you with the information available in his possession i.e. receipt-cum-agreement to sell dated 28.03.2009 and showed his intention to treat sum of Rs 5. 75 Crore (11.25 crore - 5.50 crore) as unexplained receipts.

6. Finally, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment on 30.03.2015 and accepted the income retuned by you. With regard to the issue of receipt of amount of Rs.5.75 crore over and above the amount of Rs.5.50 crore received on the sale of above-referred property, the Assessing Officer has accepted the submissions made by you and held that Sh. Amarjit Singh Randhawa might have received the money over and above in entirety and without the knowledge of the assessee.

7. A perusal of the record shows that the Assessing Officer has accepted the submissions made by you without making any further enquiry whatsoever before accepting the retuned income and before coming to the conclusion that you have not received any amount, apart from your share in Rs.5.50 crore. Assessing Officer has simply relied upon whatever has been said by the assessee. The Assessing Officer should have made independent enquiries from Sh. Amarjit Singh Randhawa as well as from the purchasers of the property i.e. Great Value Infrapromoters Pvt. Ltd regarding the monetary consideration involved in sale/purchase of the property. If proper enquiries would have been conducted then the position could have resulted into substantial long term capital gain instead of long term capital loss shown by the assessee and accepted by the Assessing Officer. Hence, in the absence of any independent enquiry made by the Assessing Officer, the amount of Rs.95,83,333/- (112500000- 55000000) x 1/6 has remained unexplained and claim of the assessee of Long Term Capital Loss of Rs.14,30,248/-, as shown in thecomputation of income, has been accepted without inquiry which would have been Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.81,53,086/- instead of loss on account of transfer of long term capital asset. The Assessing Officer has not enquired even from the assessee the reasons for selling the property at a rate which would yield Long Term Capital Loss as a prudent person would not sell property the property which would yield losses. But, even if it is the case, the reasons and the genuineness of the reasons should have been examined.

3.10. The Assesse filed detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice on 07.03.2017 and had submitted that the adequate enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer in Original Assessment (153C) proceedings and therefore there was no reason to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961).

3.11. The Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–3, Ludhiana passed an order u/s 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) dated 23.03.2017 by holding that the assessment order dated 30.03.2015 is erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and set aside the order to the file of the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order in accordance with law in respect of the issue discussed regarding verification of genuineness of sundry creditors and also raised in show cause notice u/s 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The PCIT in paragraph 4 had concluded as under:-

“4. I have carefully considered assessee's submissions which are not acceptable on the issue that AO has excepted the submission made by the assessee without making any further enquiry whatsoever before accepting the returned income and before coming to the conclusion that assessee has not received any amount apart from his share in Rs.5.50crore. AO has simply relied upon whatever submissions have been made by the assessee. The AO should have made independent enquiries from Sh. Amarjit Singh Randhawa as well as from the purchasers of the property regarding the monetary consideration involved in sale/purchase of the property. Proper enquiries conducted would have been resulted into substantial long term capital gain instead of long term capital loss shown by the assessee and accepted by the AO. The AO has not enquired even from the assessee, the reasons for selling the property at a rate which would yield long term capital loss as a prudent person would not sell property, the property which would yield. But, even if it is the case, the reasons and genuineness of the reasons should have been examined. It is also pertinent to note that two cases were assessed at Chandigarh and 1/6 share of this amount was added back which is also confirmed by CIT(A). It further strengthen the view that the AO has not applied his mind and passed order without verifying the facts and without any investigation.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, the order of the AO was erroneous, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Malabar Industrial company Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at 243 ITR 83 (SC). Further in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT & Ors 99 ITR 375 (Del), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court have held in that not making an inquiry warranted on the facts of a case will make the assessment order erroneous. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of K.A. RamswamyChettiar&Anr Vs. CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad.). Moreover, the facts of the case are squarely covered by Explanation 2 of Sec.263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), which is inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015. It reads as under:-

"For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the principal Commissioner or Commissioner,

a) The order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made;

b) The order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim;

c) The order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section J J9;or

d) The order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of assessee or any other person."

In view of the aforesaid facts, the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as well.”

3.12. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the PCIT, the Assesse is in appeal before us on the grounds mentioned hereinabove.

4. Submission of Assesse:

4.1 The Ld. AR had submitted that the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer cannot be termed to be erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as the same was passed after making detailed enquiry as will be clear from bare reading of the assessment order.

4.2 The Learned Assessing Officer has discussed in detail the queries raised and replies furnished by the appellant and after due application of mind and also approval obtained from the Learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 153B (of Income Tax Act, 1961), framed the assessment by accepting the return of the appellant.

4.3 The Ld. AR had submitted that the alleged document was not found from the possession of the appellant and it does not bear the signatures of either of the appellant. The alleged document is only a photocopy and despite the request of the appellant, original has never been made available. The Ld. AR had submitted that no addition can be made on the basis of photocopy of the document more particularly when the document did not bear the signature of the Assesse. For the abovesaid proposition the Assesse rely upon the decision in the following matter:

335 ITR page 83 CIT vs Anil Kumar Sharma “Whether where it was discernible from record that Assessing Officer had applied his mind to issue in question, Commissioner could invoke Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) merely because he had different opinion – Held, no.”

203 ITR page 188 (Bombay) CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. “Their Lordships have held that ITO’s order would not be held erroneous simply because he disagrees with the conclusion arrived at by the Assessing Officer” 4.5 The Ld. AR had submitted that the amendment to Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 wherein explanation 2 to Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) wherein it was provided that the order should be deemed to be erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue if in the opinion of the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax the order is passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made. This explanation also came for scrutiny before different judicial forums and it has been held that the explanation 2(a) to Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) does not authorise to give unfettered powers to Commissioner to revise each and every order, if in his opinion same has been passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made. The Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments:

Judgment of the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench “B” in the case of Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(1)(1), Mumbai reported at [2016] 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mumbai-Trib).

Judgment of the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi “A” Bench in the case of M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Gurgaon bearing ITA No. 3205/Del/2017.

Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. reported at [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)  Judgment of the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “C”, New Delhi in the case of Indian Farmers & Fertilizers Cooperative Limited Vs. the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–11 bearing ITA No. 2487/Del/2016.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–01, New Delhi Vs. Brahma Centre Development Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 116/2021 and 118/2021 dated 05.07.2021.

On the basis of the above, it was submitted that once the additions in the hand of Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa were found to be unsustainable and reopening was quashed, therefore the present order of 263 is also liable to be quashed.

5. Submission of DR:

5.1 The Ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the order passed by the PCIT and had submitted that inadequate enquiry were made by the Assessing Officer and therefore the order passed by PCIT was correct as the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.

6. Finding:

6.1 We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. The basis of invocation of Section 243 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was mentioned by the PCIT in paragraph 4 of the Show Cause Notice dated 14.02.2017. From the reading of paragraph 4, it appears that PCIT of the opinion that the Assessing Officer despite having the possession of (1) Agreement to Sell for Rs.11,25,00,000/- and Minutes of the Board Meeting of Great Value Infra Promoters Private Limited and not made the additions in the hands of the Assesse.

6.2 The PCIT had recorded in paragraph 7 of the Show Cause Notice that the Assessing Officer had not made further enquiry and had accepted the return of income.

6.3 The perusal of the order passed by the Assessing Officer clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has sought the reply of the Assesse on both the points namely the execution of the Agreement to Sell by Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa as a GPA for the Assesse as well as on the minutes of Board Meeting of Great Value Infra. The Assessing Officer has made the enquiries and thereafter come to the conclusion that no addition can be made on the basis of the photocopy of the Agreement to Sell allegedly executed by Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa. Further, the minutes of the Board Meeting though pertains to Great Value Infra does not reflect paying of any on money over and above the sale consideration mentioned in the Agreements. The present case before us is not a case of no enquiry rather it is a case of adequate enquiry the PCIT, in the Show Cause Notice also mentioned that the enquiries were made by the Assessing Officer. However, he has mentioned that more enquiries were required to be made. The explanation 2 Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) provide that the order would be erroneous and prejudicial in the interest of Revenue if the order was passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been done.

6.4 However, in the present case, the enquiries and verification were made by the Assessing Officer Assesse mentioned hereinabove. However, despite that the PCIT had mentioned that the enquiry should have been made from Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa as well as from the purchaser of the property regarding the monitoring consideration involved in the sale purchase of the property. In our view, the conclusion of the PCIT was erroneous as no addition can be made on the basis of dumb document namely the photocopy of the Agreement to Sell which did not bear the signature of the Assesse.

6.5 Further, in paragraph 4 of the CIT, it is mentioned that the two cases were assessed at Chandigarh and the amount was added back which was also confirmed by CIT Appeal. In our view this finding of the PCIT is again required to be rejected as in the Appeal filed by Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa and Smt. Amandeep Kaur, I.T. Nos. 795 & 796 of 2017 were allowed by the Tribunal and thereby the addition made of the said amounts have been deleted by the Tribunal. In our considered opinion, once the order passed by the CIT Appeal in the hands of the co-seller namely Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa and Smt. Amandeep Kaur was passed by the Tribunal and the additions were deleted, then no addition can be made in the hands of the Assesse who were neither the signatory of the Agreement nor any GPA was granted in favour of Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa. In our view, the order passed under Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) would unsettle the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa.

6.6 We are also of the view that PCIT should himself have conducted the enquiry or causing to make such enquiries have passed the order under Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961). In the present case, despite the material available on record, no further enquiry were made by the PCIT and had simply relied upon the finding recorded by the CIT Appeal in the hands of co-owners. Lastly, we are of the view that in the present case, sufficient enquiries were made and in the absence of the original document, which was not signed by the Assesse, in the absence of the GPA in favour of Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa and any other evidence proving the receipt of on- money at the time of registration of sale deed, it will not be possible for the Assessing Officer to make additions in the hands of the Assesse before us. We are of the opinion that the PCIT has failed to prove how the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous in the absence of any incriminating to prove the receipt of on-money.

6.7 We are supported by the decision rendered by Delhi Tribunal in the case of Brahma Centre Development Private Limited, ITA nos. 4341 & 4342/Delhi/2019 dated 18.12.2019 wherein the Tribunal in paragraphs 12, 13 & 14 has held as under:-

“12. In view of the above, we find it difficult to agree with the ld. DR that there was no enquiry conducted by the Ld. Assessing Officer by putting any specific question to the assessee as to the treatment given to the interest. As a matter of fact, the reason for the difference in the amount as per Form 26AS and ITR was due to the interest received from the banks that was duly accounted and considered in the financial statements of the company and was adjusted against the project expenditure. The very fact that pursuant to the scrutiny when the Ld. Assessing Officer proposed charging the interest amount received to tax, the very same explanation was offered by the assessee and was accepted by the Assessing Officer. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that it is not a case of no enquiry and as a matter of fact, it was specifically brought to the notice of the Ld. Assessing Officer that the interest earned was adjusted against the project expenditure.

13. Further, it is an admitted fact that in this case, the business of the assessee was commenced in this case, unlike the facts in the case of M/s. Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.(supra). The Mumbai Bench of Tribunal while noticing the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd, 332 ITR 167 and the case of Nagesh knitwear Pvt. Ltd., 355 ITR 135 observed that the Explanation- 2 to section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) inserted by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2015 would not impact the assessment earlier to 2014-15 and such a decision was followed by the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of Arun Kumar Garg (HUF) vs. PCIT in ITA No. 3391/Del/2018 for the assessment year 2014-15 and by order dated 08.01.2019 held that Explanation 2 to section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) is only prospective in nature.

14. In the case on hand, the ld. PCIT while reading the provisions of section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.(supra) reached a conclusion that inasmuch as there was no specific inquiry by the Assessing Officer, the assessment order was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He does not conduct any independent enquiry to reach the conclusion that the assessment order was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. If we accept the submission of the ld. DR that since all the material was available on record, there was no need for the PCIT to conduct any further inquiry, it also inures to the benefit of the assessee because all these things are available on record and the assessee specifically submitted that the difference in the ITR and 26AS occurred because of the adjustment of the interest received against the project expenditure. Admittedly, this is the only project conducted by the assessee and there is no other project. In such an event, it is not the passive submission to be recorded to the AO, but also actively pleading before him that the interest received was adjusted against the project expenditure.”

6.8 From the perusal of paragraph 13 supra it is clear that the Tribunal has held that the explanation 2 section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) is only prospective in nature.

6.9 The said decision of the Tribunal was assailed by the Revenue in ITA No.116 of 2021 and ITA No.118 of 2021 before Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal. We are reproducing hereinbelow of the findings of the Delhi High Court in paragraphs 10 & 11 which are to be following effect.

Issue no. (ii): 10. The standard to be adopted while dealing with the issue as to whether or not an AO has carried out an enquiry or verification, all that the Court is required to ascertain is as to whether the AO applied his mind.

10.1. The fact that the AO has not given reasons in the assessment order is not indicative, always, of whether or not he has applied his mind. Therefore, scrutiny of the record, is necessary and while scrutinising the record the Court has to keep in mind the difference between lack of enquiry and perceived inadequacy in enquiry. Inadequacy in conduct of enquiry cannot be the reason based on which powers under Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) can be invoked to interdict an assessment order. The observations made in this behalf, by the Division Bench of this Court, in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., [2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi)/[2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) being apposite, are extracted hereafter.

Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry". If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of "lack of inquiry", that such a course of action would be open. In Gabriel India Ltd.'s case (supra), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner :

From a reading of sub-section (1) of section, it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examina- tion of the records of any proceedings under this Act, he considers that any order passed therein by the Income-tax Officer is 'erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue'. It is not an arbitrary or unchartered power. It can be exercised only on fulfilment of the requirements laid down in sub-section (1). The consideration of the Commissioner as to whether an order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue must be based on materials on the record of the proceedings called for by him. If there are no materials on record on the basis of which it can be said that the Commissioner acting in a reasonable manner could have come to such a conclusion, the very initiation of proceedings by him will be illegal and without jurisdiction. The Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to starting fishing and roving enquiries in matters or orders which are already concluded. Such action will be against the well-accepted policy of law that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. [See : Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO[1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC) at page 10].

From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately. This section does not visualise a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decision is held to be erroneous. Cases may be visualised where the Income-tax Officer while making an assessment examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and determines the income Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:06.07.2021 10:30:10 either by accepting the accounts or by making some estimate himself. The Commissioner, on perusal of the records, may be of the opinion that the estimate made by the officer concerned was on the lower side and left to the Commissioner he would have estimated the income at a figure higher than the one determined by the Income-tax Officer. That would not vest the Commissioner with power to re-examine the accounts and determine the income himself at a higher figure. It is because the Income-tax Officer has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in him in accordance with law and arrived at conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion There must be some prima facie material on record to show that tax which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation a lesser tax than what was just has been imposed.

We may now examine the facts of the present case in the light of the powers of the Commissioner set out above. The Income-tax Officer in this case had made enquiries in regard to the nature of the expenditure incurred by the assessee. The assessee had given detailed explanation on that regard by a letter in writing. All these are part of the record of the case.

Evidently, the claim was allowed by the Income- tax Officer on being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. Such decision of the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard . . ." (pp. 113-117) .

15. Thus, even the Commissioner conceded the position that the Assessing Officer made the inquiries, elicited replies and thereafter passed the assessment order. The grievance of the Commissioner was that the Assessing Officer should have made further inquires rather than accepting the explanation. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case of 'lack of inquiry'."

10.2. This view was followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, (2010) 194 taxman 504 (Delhi).

Issue no. (iii):

11. The assessment order can be interdicted under Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), if two conditions are met, i.e., that the order is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. [See Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd., (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)] Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:06.07.2021 10:30:10 11.1. Therefore, the error should be one that is not debatable or a plausible view. Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) invests a power of revision in a superior officer and therefore, by the very nature of the power, does not allow for supplanting or substituting the view of the AO. The appreciation of material placed before the AO is, exclusively within his domain which cannot be interdicted by a superior officer while exercising powers under Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) only on the ground that if he had appraised the said material, he would have come to a different conclusion. [See Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO, [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC)]”

6.10 Respectfully following the decision of Delhi High Court in the matter of Brahma Centre Development Private Limited, ITA No.116 of 2021 be quash order passed under Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) in the case of the Assesse.

7. In the light of the above, the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was without any jurisdiction and accordingly we quashed the same. As the facts of all the appeals are similar, therefore respectfully following the our decision in lead case in ITA No.206 of 2017, all the three Appeals bearing nos.204, 205 & 207 of 2017 are allowed.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Dr. Mitha Lal Meena) (Laliet Kumar)

Accountant Member

LEGAL REFERENCES

Section 14 Section 5 Section 4 Section 11 Section 132 Section 263 Section 142(1) Section 153C Section 153A Section 153D Section 143(2) Section 95 Section 99 Section 81 Section 263(1)

Similar Ripples

Section - 132 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), Search and seizure

Section - 142 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), Inquiry before assessment

High Court Sets Aside Assessment Order Due to Violation of Faceless Assessment …

Section - 153A (of Income Tax Act, 1961), Assessment in case of search or requi…

Questions

There is no question

Sufficient enquiries were made and in the absence of the original document, PCIT has failed to prove how the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous in the absence of any incriminating to prove the receipt of on-money

Write your Comment

Generic

Reportdata/8737.pdf

Would you like to edit this news ? Edit

Select Format

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Advanced

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Add tags

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

PUBLISH IT

Don't sell
PUBLISH IT
Publish privately
SAVE AS DRAFT

Dont't publish now

Held

PCIT of opinion that the Assessing Officer despite having the possession of (1) Agreement to Sell and Minutes of the Board Meeting of G and not made the additions in the hands of the Assessee.

(para 6.1)

Perusal of the order passed by the Assessing Officer clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has sought the reply of the Assessee on both the points. Assessing Officer has made the enquiries and thereafter come to the conclusion that no addition can be made on the basis of the photocopy of the Agreement to Sell allegedly executed by A. Present case is not a case of no enquiry rather it is a case of adequate enquiry the PCIT, in the Show Cause Notice also mentioned that the enquiries were made by the Assessing Officer. However, he has
mentioned that more enquiries were required to be made. The explanation 2 Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) provide that the order would be erroneous and prejudicial in the interest of Revenue if the order was passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been done.

(para 6.3)

However, in the present case, the enquiries and verification were made by the Assessing Officer Assesseee mentioned hereinabove. However, despite that the PCIT had mentioned that the enquiry should have been made from A as well as from the purchaser of the property regarding the monitoring consideration involved in the sale purchase of the property.
Conclusion of the PCIT was erroneous as no addition can be made on the basis of dumb document namely the photocopy of the Agreement to Sell which did not bear the signature of the Assessee.

(para 6.4)

PCIT should himself have conducted the enquiry or causing to make such enquiries have passed the order under Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961). In the present case, despite the material available on record, no further enquiry were made by the PCIT and had simply relied upon the finding recorded by the CIT Appeal in the hands of co-owners. Sufficient enquiries were made and in
the absence of the original document, which was not signed by the Assessee, in the absence of the GPA in favour of A and any other evidence proving the receipt of on- money at the time of registration of sale deed, it will not be possible for the Assessing Officer to make additions in the hands of the Assessee. PCIT has failed to prove how the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous in the absence of any incriminating to prove the receipt of on-money. Order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was without any jurisdiction and accordingly quashed. Assessee’s Appeals allowed .

(para 6.6)

Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. 

The present group of Appeals were filed by the Assesse feeling aggrieved by the order passed on 23.03.2017 for the assessment year 2010-2011 on the following grounds:-

III. That the Ld. Principal CIT was not justified to hold that the Ld. Assessing Officer failed to verify the genuineness of sundry creditors, whereas no such issue was raised in the Show Cause Notice. 
2. The grounds in all the four Appeals are common. Therefore, we are taking the file of Santok Singh Brar I.T. No.206 of 2017 as a lead case.
Date of Hearing 08.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 16.08.2021.

3. Brief facts:

“However, as per information available with this office in shape of an
Agreement to Sell dated 28.03.2009 entered into Shri Amarjeet Singh
Randhawa for himself and GPA of others with the abovesaid property
through M/s Delhi Pb. Real Estate Private Limited, Sector-22
Chandigarh and Lali Associate of Mohali and the above-mentioned
property was sold for a consideration of Rs.11,25,00,000/- (Rupees
Eleven Crore Twenty Five Lakhs only). Further, Shri Amarjeet Singh
Randhawa has admitted that the copy of the receipt cum agreement to
sell was with Bajwa Brothers and the same was found and seized from
the office of Godwin Group at Greenwood City Meerut and hence
these papers cannot be forged”

“ iv) Further in your notice, you have alleged that a Receipt cum
Agreement to sell was executed by sh. Amarjit Singh Randhwa Acting
for himself and GPA of other co-owner. It is submitted that assesses
mentioned above have never appointed Sh. Amrjitsingh Randhawa as
their GPA. The assesses never, executed any agreement to appointed Sh.
Amarjit Singh Randhawa as their GPA. Thus, alleged Receipt cum
agreement to sell cannot be used against the assesses on that basis. The
assesses never executed any agreement to sell dated 28.03.2009 as
alleged in your show cause notice. If you have such document which
contained the signatures of the assesses, the same may kindly be also
provided. However it is brought to your kind notice that the assesses have
themselves executed the sale deed in the capacity of themselves which
proves that no such GPA was ever given.

v) Your show cause notice has referred to a statement of Sh. Amarjit
Singh Randhawa from perusal of the copy the document officially
received from your office as per the request, it is submitted that Mr.
Amarjit Singh Randhawa was admitted that he is holder of any Power of
Attorney on behalf of assesses or has executed any agreement to sell on
their behalf. Without prejudge to, above Mr. Amarjit singh Randhawa has
denied the execution of any alleged receipt-cum- agreement to sell dated
28.03.2009.

vi) From the inspection of the documents in your possession officially
allowed by you as per the request of the assesses, we have not found any
document either in original or a photocopy signed by the assesses or any
GPA document relating to the. assesses, which are being relied upon by
you for framing the assessments in the case of the assessee.

4. Keeping in view the submissions made above, it is clear, that no
addition/ assessments can be made on account of purported alleged
document referred by you in your show cause notice. As there is no
document in the possession of IT. Department /your office, which can
conclusively proved at the above referred assesses have received a sum
more than Rs. 5.5 crores i.e. registered deed value against the sale of the
said property. The notice issued U/s. 153C (of Income Tax Act, 1961) is merely
on presumptive basis without any legally acceptable documentary
evidence against the assesses.”

ii) The alleged document is a photocopy only and as per various judicial decision, photocopy unless it is duly signed in original has no value in the eyes of law. 
Reliance is placed on Pepsi Co India Holdings Private Limited vs. ACIT of
Income Tax 270 CTR 467 (Delhi) and also of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High
Court in the case of CIT vs Sidhu Rice and General Mills reported in 281 ITR
page 428.

v) Your Show Cause Notice has referred to a statement of Sh. Amarjit Singh
Randhawa. From perusal of the copy of the document officially received from
the Assessing Officer, it is submitted that nowhere Mr. Amarjit Singh Randhawa was admitted that he is holder of any Power of Attorney on behalf of the assesses or has executed any agreement to sell on their behalf. Without prejudice to above, Mr. Amarjit Singh Randhawa has denied the execution of any alleged receipt cum agreement to sell dated 28.03.2009.

vii) After appreciating the contentions of the petitioner assessee during the course of original assessment proceedings, the Ld. Assessing Officer had
framed the assessment after obtaining the approval of the Ld. Joint
Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 153D (of Income Tax Act, 1961). It will be
wrong to observe that the Ld. Assessing Officer did not conduct any enquiry
whatsoever before accepting the returned income. It can clearly be observed
from submissions made above that the Ld. Assessing Officer did conduct
enquiries and after having felt satisfied with the reply of the petitioner
assessee, assessment was framed by him.

3.9. The Principal CIT had issued the Show Cause Notice on 14.02.2017 and in the Show Cause Notice it was mentioned in paragraphs 4 to 7 as under:-

4. The Assessing Officer was also in possession of the information that an
agreement dated 28.03.2009, to sell the above-referred immovable property,
entered into by Sh. Amarjeet Singh Randhawa (Who is one of the co-owners
in purchase as well as sale of above property) for himself and GPA of others
(which includes yourself along with other co-owners) with S. Bhupinder
Singh Bajwa, Sia Late Sh. Gurbachan Singh, A-134, Defence Colony,
Merrut, UP through M/s Delhi /Pb. Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Sec-22 (of Income Tax Act, 1961),
Chandigarh and Lally Associates of Phase- 5,Mohali. As per this agreement,
this property was to be sold/or a consideration of Rs.11,25,00,000/-.
Documentary evidence of this agreement to sell is placed on record which
has been signed by the sellers/purchasers alongwith witnesses. Further,
there is another document which is minutes of meeting of Board Directors of
Great Value infrapromoters Pvt. Ltd wherein the purchasers have
authorized their representative to finalize the deal.

The Assessing Officer has vide notice under section 142(1) (of Income Tax Act, 1961)
has asked you to file the details of immovable properties acquired by you.
On 16.03.2015, the Assessing Officer confronted you with the information
available in his possession i.e. receipt-cum-agreement to sell dated
28.03.2009 and showed his intention to treat sum of Rs 5. 75 Crore (11.25
crore - 5.50 crore) as unexplained receipts.

5. Thereafter, on 25.03.2015, the Assessing Officer again sent to you a copy of deal entered by Sh. Gurbachan Singh Brar with the Great Value
Infrapromoters Pvt. Ltd for sale/purchase of above-referred property for
Rs.11.25 crore. 
6. Finally, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment on 30.03.2015 and
accepted the income retuned by you. With regard to the issue of receipt of
amount of Rs.5.75 crore over and above the amount of Rs.5.50 crore
received on the sale of above-referred property, the Assessing Officer has
accepted the submissions made by you and held that Sh. Amarjit Singh
Randhawa might have received the money over and above in entirety and
without the knowledge of the assessee. 
7. A perusal of the record shows that the Assessing Officer has accepted the
submissions made by you without making any further enquiry whatsoever
before accepting the retuned income and before coming to the conclusion
that you have not received any amount, apart from your share in Rs.5.50
crore. Assessing Officer has simply relied upon whatever has been said by
the assessee. The Assessing Officer should have made independent
enquiries from Sh. Amarjit Singh Randhawa as well as from the
purchasers of the property i.e. Great Value Infrapromoters Pvt. Ltd
regarding the monetary consideration involved in sale/purchase of the
property. If proper enquiries would have been conducted then the position
could have resulted into substantial long term capital gain instead of long
term capital loss shown by the assessee and accepted by the Assessing
Officer. Hence, in the absence of any independent enquiry made by the
Assessing Officer, the amount of Rs.95,83,333/- (112500000- 55000000) x
1/6 has remained unexplained and claim of the assessee of Long Term
Capital Loss of Rs.14,30,248/-, as shown in thecomputation of income, has
been accepted without inquiry which would have been Long Term Capital
Gains of Rs.81,53,086/- instead of loss on account of transfer of long term
capital asset. The Assessing Officer has not enquired even from the
assessee the reasons for selling the property at a rate which would yield
Long Term Capital Loss as a prudent person would not sell property the
property which would yield losses. But, even if it is the case, the reasons
and the genuineness of the reasons should have been examined.

“4. I have carefully considered assessee's submissions which are not
acceptable on the issue that AO has excepted the submission made by
the assessee without making any further enquiry whatsoever before
accepting the returned income and before coming to the conclusion
that assessee has not received any amount apart from his share in
Rs.5.50crore. AO has simply relied upon whatever submissions have
been made by the assessee. The AO should have made independent
enquiries from Sh. Amarjit Singh Randhawa as well as from the
purchasers of the property regarding the monetary consideration
involved in sale/purchase of the property. Proper enquiries conducted
would have been resulted into substantial long term capital gain
instead of long term capital loss shown by the assessee and accepted
by the AO. The AO has not enquired even from the assessee, the
reasons for selling the property at a rate which would yield long term
capital loss as a prudent person would not sell property, the property
which would yield. But, even if it is the case, the reasons and
genuineness of the reasons should have been examined. It is also
pertinent to note that two cases were assessed at Chandigarh and 1/6
share of this amount was added back which is also confirmed by
CIT(A). It further strengthen the view that the AO has not applied his
mind and passed order without verifying the facts and without any
investigation.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, the order of the AO was
erroneous, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Malabar
Industrial company Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at 243 ITR 83 (SC). Further
in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT &amp; Ors 99 ITR 375
(Del), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court have held in that not making an
inquiry warranted on the facts of a case will make the assessment
order erroneous. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madras
High Court in the case of K.A. RamswamyChettiar&amp;Anr Vs. CIT 220
ITR 657 (Mad.). Moreover, the facts of the case are squarely covered
by Explanation 2 of Sec.263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), which is inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015. It
reads as under:-

"For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order
passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so
far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion
of the principal Commissioner or Commissioner,

a) The order is passed without making inquiries or verification
which should have been made; 
b) The order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into
the claim; 
c) The order has not been made in accordance with any order,
direction or instruction issued by the Board under section J
J9;or 
d) The order has not been passed in accordance with any decision
which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the
jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of
assessee or any other person." 
In view of the aforesaid facts, the order of the AO is erroneous and
prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as well.” 
3.12. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the PCIT, the Assesse is in appeal before us on the grounds mentioned hereinabove.

4. Submission of Assesse:

4.4 The Ld. AR had submitted that the appellant never appointed Shri Amarjit Singh Randhawa as their General Power of Attorney. The sale deeds were executed by the appellants themselves. The main ground on which the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has sought to revise the assessment order is that the Learned Assessing Officer did not make enquiry with respect to such transaction which is factually incorrect as has already been demonstrated by going through the assessment order and by filing copies of letters filed before the Learned Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision in the matter of 341 ITR page 180 (Delhi) CIT vs Hindustan Marketing &amp; Advertising Co. Ltd. wherein it was held that “Whether in view of the fact that ITO had made reasonably detailed enquiries, had collected relevant material and discussed vario0us facets of case with assessee, order of Commissioner to direct fresh
assessment by going deeper into matter would not form a valid or
legal basis to exercise jurisdiction under section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) – Held, yes.
Whether, therefore, impugned order to Tribunal was to be upheld –
Held, yes.” 
335 ITR page 83 CIT vs Anil Kumar Sharma “Whether where it was discernible from record that Assessing Officer had applied his mind to issue in question, Commissioner could invoke Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) merely because he had different opinion – Held, no.” 
203 ITR page 188 (Bombay) CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd.
“Their Lordships have held that ITO’s order would not be held erroneous
simply because he disagrees with the conclusion arrived at by the Assessing
Officer”

4.5 The Ld. AR had submitted that the amendment to Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 wherein explanation 2 to Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) wherein it was provided that the order should be deemed to be erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue if in the opinion of the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax the order is passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made. This explanation also came for scrutiny before different judicial forums and it has been held that the explanation 2(a) to Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) does not authorise to give unfettered powers to Commissioner to revise each and every
order, if in his opinion same has been passed without making enquiries or
verification which should have been made. The Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments:

Judgment of the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench “B” in
the case of Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(1)(1), Mumbai
reported at [2016] 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mumbai-Trib).

Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of the Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. reported at [1993] 203 ITR
108 (Bombay)  Judgment of the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “C”, New Delhi in the case of Indian Farmers &amp; Fertilizers Cooperative Limited Vs. the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–11 bearing ITA No. 2487/Del/2016.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–01, New Delhi Vs. Brahma Centre
Development Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 116/2021 and 118/2021 dated 05.07.2021.

4.6 Lastly it was submitted that in the case of Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa and Smt. Amandeep Kaur the reopening were made under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) by their Assessing Officer on the basis of the same documents (photocopies of the same documents).The Tribunal vide detailed order dated 11.11.2020 had accepted the Appeal of the Assesse and held that the reopening made by the Assessing Officer was without any independent enquiry and application of mind. 
On the basis of the above, it was submitted that once the additions in the hand of Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa were found to be unsustainable and reopening was quashed, therefore the present order of 263 is also liable to be quashed.

5. Submission of DR:

5.1 The Ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the order passed by the PCIT and had submitted that inadequate enquiry were made by the Assessing Officer and
therefore the order passed by PCIT was correct as the order passed by the
Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.

6. Finding: 
6.1 We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. The basis of invocation of Section 243 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was mentioned by the PCIT in paragraph 4 of the Show Cause Notice dated 14.02.2017. From the reading of paragraph 4, it appears that PCIT of the opinion that the Assessing Officer despite having the possession of (1) Agreement to Sell for Rs.11,25,00,000/- and Minutes of the Board Meeting of Great Value Infra Promoters Private Limited and not made the additions in the hands of the Assesse.

6.2 The PCIT had recorded in paragraph 7 of the Show Cause Notice that the
Assessing Officer had not made further enquiry and had accepted the return of income.

6.3 The perusal of the order passed by the Assessing Officer clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has sought the reply of the Assesse on both the points namely the execution of the Agreement to Sell by Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa as a GPA for the Assesse as well as on the minutes of Board Meeting of Great Value Infra. The Assessing Officer has made the enquiries and thereafter come to the conclusion that no addition can be made on the basis of the photocopy of the Agreement to Sell allegedly executed by Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa. Further, the minutes of the Board Meeting though pertains to Great Value Infra does not reflect paying of any on money over and above the sale consideration mentioned in the Agreements. The present case before us is not a case of no enquiry rather it is a case of adequate enquiry the PCIT, in the Show Cause Notice also mentioned that the enquiries were made by the Assessing Officer. However, he has mentioned that more enquiries were required to be made. The explanation 2 Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) provide
that the order would be erroneous and prejudicial in the interest of Revenue if the order was passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been done.

6.5 Further, in paragraph 4 of the CIT, it is mentioned that the two cases were assessed at Chandigarh and the amount was added back which was also confirmed by CIT Appeal. In our view this finding of the PCIT is again required to be rejected as in the Appeal filed by Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa and Smt. Amandeep Kaur, I.T. Nos. 795 &amp; 796 of 2017 were allowed by the Tribunal and thereby the addition made of the said amounts have been deleted by the Tribunal. In our considered opinion, once the order passed by the CIT Appeal in the hands of the co-seller namely Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa and Smt. Amandeep Kaur was passed by the Tribunal and the additions were deleted, then no addition can be made in the hands of the Assesse who were neither the signatory of the Agreement nor any GPA was granted in favour of Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa. In our view, the order passed under Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) would unsettle the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa.

6.7 We are supported by the decision rendered by Delhi Tribunal in the case of Brahma Centre Development Private Limited, ITA nos. 4341 &amp; 4342/Delhi/2019 dated 18.12.2019 wherein the Tribunal in paragraphs 12, 13 &amp; 14 has held as under:-

“12. In view of the above, we find it difficult to agree with the ld. DR
that there was no enquiry conducted by the Ld. Assessing
Officer by putting any specific question to the assessee as to the
treatment given to the interest. As a matter of fact, the reason
for the difference in the amount as per Form 26AS and ITR was
due to the interest received from the banks that was duly
accounted and considered in the financial statements of the
company and was adjusted against the project expenditure. The
very fact that pursuant to the scrutiny when the Ld. Assessing
Officer proposed charging the interest amount received to tax,
the very same explanation was offered by the assessee and was
accepted by the Assessing Officer. We are, therefore, of the
considered opinion that it is not a case of no enquiry and as a
matter of fact, it was specifically brought to the notice of the
Ld. Assessing Officer that the interest earned was adjusted
against the project expenditure.

13. Further, it is an admitted fact that in this case, the business of
the assessee was commenced in this case, unlike the facts in the
case of M/s. Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers
Ltd.(supra). The Mumbai Bench of Tribunal while noticing the
decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs.
Sunbeam Auto Ltd, 332 ITR 167 and the case of Nagesh
knitwear Pvt. Ltd., 355 ITR 135 observed that the Explanation-
2 to section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) inserted by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f.
01.04.2015 would not impact the assessment earlier to 2014-15
and such a decision was followed by the Delhi Bench of
Tribunal in the case of Arun Kumar Garg (HUF) vs. PCIT in
ITA No. 3391/Del/2018 for the assessment year 2014-15 and by
order dated 08.01.2019 held that Explanation 2 to section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) is only prospective in nature.

14. In the case on hand, the ld. PCIT while reading the provisions
of section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of M/s. Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and
Fertilizers Ltd.(supra) reached a conclusion that inasmuch as
there was no specific inquiry by the Assessing Officer, the
assessment order was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to
the interest of Revenue. He does not conduct any independent
enquiry to reach the conclusion that the assessment order was
erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of
Revenue. If we accept the submission of the ld. DR that since all
the material was available on record, there was no need for the
PCIT to conduct any further inquiry, it also inures to the benefit
of the assessee because all these things are available on record
and the assessee specifically submitted that the difference in the
ITR and 26AS occurred because of the adjustment of the
interest received against the project expenditure. Admittedly,
this is the only project conducted by the assessee and there is
no other project. In such an event, it is not the passive
submission to be recorded to the AO, but also actively pleading
before him that the interest received was adjusted against the
project expenditure.”

6.8 From the perusal of paragraph 13 supra it is clear that the Tribunal has held that the explanation 2 section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) is only prospective in nature.

Issue no. (ii):

10. The standard to be adopted while dealing with the issue as to
whether or not an AO has carried out an enquiry or verification, all that the Court is required to ascertain is as to whether the AO applied his mind.

10.1. The fact that the AO has not given reasons in the assessment
order is not indicative, always, of whether or not he has applied
his mind. Therefore, scrutiny of the record, is necessary and
while scrutinising the record the Court has to keep in mind the
difference between lack of enquiry and perceived inadequacy in
enquiry. Inadequacy in conduct of enquiry cannot be the reason
based on which powers under Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) can be
invoked to interdict an assessment order. The observations
made in this behalf, by the Division Bench of this Court, in
Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., [2010]
189 Taxman 436 (Delhi)/[2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) being
apposite, are extracted hereafter.

"12. We have considered the rival submissions of
the counsel on the other side and have gone
through the records. The first issue that arises for
our consideration is about the exercise of power by
the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961)
of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed
By: VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:06.07.2021
10:30:10 Income-tax Act. As noted above, the
submission of learned counsel for the revenue was
that while passing the assessment order, the
Assessing Officer did not consider this aspect
specifically whether the expenditure in question
was revenue or capital expenditure. This argument
predicates on the assessment order which
apparently does not give any reasons while
allowing the entire expenditure as revenue
expenditure. However, that by itself would not be
indicative of the fact that the Assessing Officer had
not applied his mind on the issue. There are
judgments galore laying down the principle that
the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is not
required to give detailed reason in respect of each
and every item of deduction, etc. Therefore, one
has to see from the record as to whether there was
application of mind before allowing the
expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. 
Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his
submission that one has to keep in mind the
distinction between "lack of inquiry" and
"inadequate inquiry". If there was any inquiry,
even inadequate, that would not by itself, give
occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders
under section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), merely because he
has different opinion in the matter. It is only in
cases of "lack of inquiry", that such a course of
action would be open. In Gabriel India Ltd.'s case
(supra), law on this aspect was discussed in the
following manner : 
 From a reading of sub-section (1) of section,
it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can
be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on
examina- tion of the records of any proceedings
under this Act, he considers that any order passed
therein by the Income-tax Officer is 'erroneous
insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the
revenue'. It is not an arbitrary or unchartered
power. It can be exercised only on fulfilment of the
requirements laid down in sub-section (1). The
consideration of the Commissioner as to whether
an order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to
the interests of the revenue must be based on
materials on the record of the proceedings called
for by him. If there are no materials on record on
the basis of which it can be said that the
Commissioner acting in a reasonable manner
could have come to such a conclusion, the very
initiation of proceedings by him will be illegal and
without jurisdiction. The Commissioner cannot
initiate proceedings with a view to starting fishing
and roving enquiries in matters or orders which
are already concluded. Such action will be against
the well-accepted policy of law that there must be
a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that
stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a
particular stage and that lapse of time must induce
repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial
controversies as it must in other spheres of human
activity. [See : Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd.
v. ITO[1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC) at page 10]. 
From the aforesaid definitions it is clear
that an order cannot be termed as erroneous
unless it is not in accordance with law. If an
Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law
makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be
branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply
because, according to him, the order should have
been written more elaborately. This section does
not visualise a case of substitution of the judgment
of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax
Officer, who passed the order unless the decision
is held to be erroneous. Cases may be visualised
where the Income-tax Officer while making an
assessment examines the accounts, makes
enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and
circumstances of the case and determines the
income Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:06.07.2021
10:30:10 either by accepting the accounts or by
making some estimate himself. The Commissioner,
on perusal of the records, may be of the opinion
that the estimate made by the officer concerned
was on the lower side and left to the Commissioner
he would have estimated the income at a figure
higher than the one determined by the Income-tax
Officer. That would not vest the Commissioner
with power to re-examine the accounts and
determine the income himself at a higher figure. It
is because the Income-tax Officer has exercised
the quasi-judicial power vested in him in
accordance with law and arrived at conclusion
and such a conclusion cannot be termed to be
erroneous simply because the Commissioner does
not feel satisfied with the conclusion There
must be some prima facie material on record to
show that tax which was lawfully exigible has not
been imposed or that by the application of the
relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete
interpretation a lesser tax than what was just has
been imposed.

We may now examine the facts of the
present case in the light of the powers of the
Commissioner set out above. The Income-tax
Officer in this case had made enquiries in regard
to the nature of the expenditure incurred by the
assessee. The assessee had given detailed
explanation on that regard by a letter in writing.
All these are part of the record of the case.

Evidently, the claim was allowed by the Income-
tax Officer on being satisfied with the explanation
of the assessee. Such decision of the Income-tax
Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply
because in his order he did not make an elaborate
discussion in that regard . . ." (pp. 113-117) .

15. Thus, even the Commissioner conceded the
position that the Assessing Officer made the
inquiries, elicited replies and thereafter passed the
assessment order. The grievance of the
Commissioner was that the Assessing Officer
should have made further inquires rather than
accepting the explanation. Therefore, it cannot be
said that it is a case of 'lack of inquiry'."

10.2. This view was followed by another Division Bench of this Court
in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, (2010)
194 taxman 504 (Delhi).

Issue no. (iii):

11. The assessment order can be interdicted under Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), if two conditions are met, i.e., that the order is
erroneous and is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. [See
Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax,
[2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT
vs. Max India Ltd., (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)] Signature Not
Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing
Date:06.07.2021 10:30:10 11.1. Therefore, the error should be
one that is not debatable or a plausible view. Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) invests a power of revision in a superior officer and
therefore, by the very nature of the power, does not allow for
supplanting or substituting the view of the AO. The
appreciation of material placed before the AO is, exclusively
within his domain which cannot be interdicted by a superior
officer while exercising powers under Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961)
only on the ground that if he had appraised the said material,
he would have come to a different conclusion. [See Parashuram
Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO, [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC)]”

7. In the light of the above, the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was without any jurisdiction and accordingly we quashed the same. As the facts of all the appeals are similar, therefore respectfully following the our decision in lead case in ITA No.206 of 2017, all the three Appeals bearing nos.204, 205 &amp; 207 of 2017 are allowed.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Dr. Mitha Lal Meena) (Laliet Kumar) 
Accountant Member