9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 1118 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - advance written off under the head cost of land - PCIT noticed that the AO did not call for any details with regard to the amount written off and the assessee did not furnish any evidence with regard to the advances received towards purchase of land and the reasons for write off - HELD THAT - In the case under consideration the PCIT has exercised the revisionary powers u/s. 263 of the Act since he has noticed that the assessee has written off an amount as advance written off towards cost of land and there is nothing available on record to show that the AO had made any enquiries in this regard which is required to be done. We are therefore, of the considered view that the AO has not conducted the verification that should have been conducted during the course of assessment proceedings. Respectfully following the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd. 2012 (1) TMI 76 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT and case of Gee Vee Enterprises 1974 (10) TMI 29 - DELHI HIGH COURT we hold that the PCIT was justified in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by setting aside the assessment order. We therefore modify the order passed u/s.263 with a direction to the AO to examine the issue afresh and decide the allowability in accordance with law. Appeal by the assessee is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Incorrect appreciation of facts and incorrect interpretation of law by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). 2. Direction to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the genuineness of transactions and agreements. 3. Rejection of documents/submissions by the appellant. 4. Examination of the taxability of advances received and written off. 5. Compliance with CBDT Circular No. 12/2016 and Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act. 6. Determination of whether the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Incorrect Appreciation of Facts and Incorrect Interpretation of Law by the PCIT: The appellant argued that the PCIT's order was based on an incorrect appreciation of facts and an incorrect interpretation of law, making it bad in law. The appellant contended that the PCIT erred in directing the AO to verify the genuineness of transactions and agreements made with various parties, which had already been considered during the assessment proceedings. 2. Direction to the AO to Verify the Genuineness of Transactions and Agreements: The PCIT noticed that the assessee had debited Rs. 3,89,84,200 as advance written off under the head 'cost of land' without furnishing evidence or details regarding these advances. The PCIT considered the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The PCIT directed the AO to verify the genuineness of these transactions and agreements, ensuring compliance with CBDT Circular No. 12/2016 and Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Rejection of Documents/Submissions by the Appellant: The appellant claimed that the PCIT unjustifiably rejected the documents and submissions made by the appellant, failing to appreciate the modus operandi adopted in the business operations. The appellant argued that the PCIT ignored the agreements and documents submitted to substantiate the nature of expenses. 4. Examination of the Taxability of Advances Received and Written Off: The PCIT observed that the AO did not examine the taxability of the advances received in the hands of the recipients. The PCIT held that the AO failed to verify whether the advances written off were in compliance with CBDT Circular No. 12/2016 and whether the conditions laid under Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act were satisfied. The PCIT directed the AO to examine the applicability of provisions under Section 51/56(1)(ix) in the hands of other parties. 5. Compliance with CBDT Circular No. 12/2016 and Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act: The PCIT emphasized that the AO did not examine whether the advances written off were in compliance with CBDT Circular No. 12/2016 and whether the conditions stipulated in Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act were met. The PCIT noted that the AO failed to verify if the amount of advances recoverable had been reversed in the respective ledger accounts and written off in the books of accounts during the relevant assessment year. 6. Determination of Whether the AO's Order Was Erroneous and Prejudicial to the Interests of the Revenue: The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of M/s Deniel Merchants P. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, which upheld the PCIT's action in invoking Section 263 when the AO had not made proper inquiries. The tribunal observed that the AO accepted the assessee's submissions without factually verifying them or calling for details. The tribunal held that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue as it was passed without making necessary inquiries or verification. Conclusion & Decision: The tribunal concluded that the PCIT was justified in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and setting aside the AO's assessment order. The tribunal directed the AO to examine the issue afresh and decide the allowability of the advances written off in accordance with the law. The appeal by the assessee was dismissed. Pronouncement: The judgment was pronounced in the open court on December 12, 2022.
|
