2004 (10) TMI 48 - HC - Income Tax

CIT passed an order u/s 263 setting aside the order of assessment and on ground that the Assessing Officer has accepted the credits without proper enquiry resulting in under assessment of income with consequential revenue loss - Tribunal found that lenders/creditors were genuine, the transactions were genuine and the financial capacity/supplies were not open to doubt. In the circumstances, the mere fact that a search was conducted in the premises of the assessee-company and its directors on November 27, 2001, or that some documents were seized, is not sufficient to disbelieve the clear and cogent evidence produced. The matter is purely one of fact and does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Hence this revenue appeal is dismissed tribunal was justified in holding that there was no basis for the Commissioner of Income-tax to hold that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Justification of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in quashing the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax.
3. Examination of liabilities in respect of agriculturists under the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Act, 1972.

Issue 1: Validity of the Commissioner's Order under Section 263:
The Commissioner of Income-tax set aside the assessment order of the Assessing Officer, directing a fresh assessment due to under-assessment. The Tribunal, after detailed examination, concluded that the Commissioner's order was unwarranted. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had made proper investigations and accepted genuine credits after examining the evidence provided. The Tribunal held that there was no justification for re-examination or further investigation, leading to the quashing of the Commissioner's order.

Issue 2: Justification of Tribunal in Quashing Commissioner's Order:
The Tribunal analyzed three specific heads of credits: share application money, unsecured loans, and trade creditors (agriculturists). For share application money, the Tribunal noted that the persons depositing money were genuine income-tax assessees with PAN numbers, and their statements were recorded, justifying the Assessing Officer's decision. Similarly, for unsecured loans and trade creditors, the Tribunal found that proper investigations were conducted, and evidence was satisfactory, leading to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue.

Issue 3: Examination of Liabilities under M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Act:
The Assessing Officer did not delve into the liabilities concerning agriculturists under the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Act, 1972. However, the Tribunal found that all trade creditors (farmers) were examined, and where doubt existed, the claims were rejected. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer's acceptance of trade credits was based on satisfactory evidence, and the order was not erroneous. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that all aspects were thoroughly considered, and no substantial question of law arose.

In summary, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the sufficiency of evidence provided to the Assessing Officer, the lack of errors in the assessment order, and the absence of substantial legal questions. The judgment highlighted the importance of thorough investigations and the need for justifying any re-examinations or fresh assessments under the Income-tax Act, 1961.