9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (1) TMI 600 - AT - Income TaxChallenged the Revision order passed u/s 263 - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - bad debts and deviation from provisions of section 145A - HELD THAT - In our view it has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee that in this case the accounts of the assessee had been audited and the return of income was backed by an elaborate Tax Audit Report on various points relating to the assessment. The assessee has been assessed year after year and the past history of the case contained nothing to provoke intensive investigation into the facts of the case. The learned counsel has placed assessment orders for various assessment years prior to the completion of the assessment order in question by the Assessing Officer and compared against them, there does not appear to be any prima facie case that the learned Assessing Officer was oblivious of his responsibilities while completing assessment u/s 143(3), as alleged by the learned CIT. The learned CIT has stated that the assessment has been completed in routine manner, but he has not pointed out that any extraordinary circumstances existed so as to warrant assessment proceedings in an extraordinary manner in this case. As to the examination of the facts and bringing material on record, it is quite possible that the learned CIT would have liked it in more depth and detail. From that it does not follow that the learned Assessing Officer did not perform his task properly. While it is true that on the particular facts and the circumstances of a case want of enquiry and examination of facts on the part of the Assessing Officer in itself may render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, but it is not that if an assessment order suffers from some deficiency from the perfectionist point of view that order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We, therefore, do not see much substance in various general observations of the learned CIT in relation to the Assessing Officer carrying out enquiring in a routine or perfunctory manner. In the case before us, we find that the assessment order has been made by the Assessing Officer in accordance with the past history of the case. For the main objection raised by the learned CIT in relation to royalty allowed by the Assessing Officer no prima facie case has been made out that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is erroneous. We, therefore, hold that the impugned order u/s 263 is not legally sustainable. We quash the order u/s 263 and allow this appeal filed by the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the CIT u/s 263. 2. Allowance of Royalty Payment as Revenue Expenditure. 3. Allowance of Bad Debts. 4. Allowance of Business Promotion Expenses. 5. Allowance of Discount, Commission, and Incentives. 6. Examination of Interest Paid to Directors. 7. Changes in Method of Accounting. 8. Classification of Rental Income. Summary: 1. Jurisdiction of the CIT u/s 263: The assessee challenged the CIT's order u/s 263, claiming it was without jurisdiction and should be set aside. The CIT had issued a show-cause notice to the assessee for various issues, questioning the assessment order's correctness. The CIT held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interests due to the lack of proper examination and enquiry by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal found that the CIT's general observations about the AO's perfunctory examination were not substantiated by facts and thus held that the impugned order u/s 263 was not legally sustainable. 2. Allowance of Royalty Payment as Revenue Expenditure: The CIT argued that the royalty payment of Rs. 41,05,905 should be treated as capital expenditure, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in Southern Switch Gear Ltd. v. CIT. The Tribunal found no basis for the CIT's observation that the royalty payments were disallowable as capital expenditure. The Tribunal noted that the AO had examined the royalty payments and found them to be revenue in nature, consistent with past assessments. 3. Allowance of Bad Debts: The CIT contended that the AO allowed bad debts of Rs. 88.38 lakhs based on the Chartered Accountant's certificate without proper enquiry. The Tribunal found that the CIT did not point out any specific omission or defect in the certificate. The Tribunal noted that the AO had relied on the certificate and there was no prima facie error in the assessment order regarding bad debts. 4. Allowance of Business Promotion Expenses: The CIT claimed that the AO allowed business promotion expenses of Rs. 84.30 lakhs without proper examination. The Tribunal found that the CIT did not specify any particular defect or omission in the AO's examination. The Tribunal noted that the AO had considered the business promotion expenses, including entertainment expenditure, and found no under-assessment. 5. Allowance of Discount, Commission, and Incentives: The CIT argued that the AO allowed discount, commission, and incentives amounting to Rs. 1.97 crores without proper verification. The Tribunal found that the CIT did not provide specific details of any omission or defect in the AO's examination. The Tribunal noted that the AO had considered these expenses and found no basis for the CIT's observations. 6. Examination of Interest Paid to Directors: The CIT contended that the AO allowed interest payments to directors without examining the reasonableness of the interest rates. The Tribunal found that the CIT's observations were based on scant material and that the AO had considered the interest payments in light of prevailing interest rates. 7. Changes in Method of Accounting: The CIT argued that the AO accepted changes in the method of accounting without proper examination. The Tribunal found that the AO had considered the changes in the method of accounting and their impact on the assessee's income. The Tribunal noted that the CIT did not consult an expert or propose a special audit before making the impugned order. 8. Classification of Rental Income: The CIT claimed that the AO wrongly assessed rental income as business income instead of income from house property. The Tribunal found that the AO had considered the rental income and assessed it under the correct head of income. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the CIT's order u/s 263, holding that the AO had conducted a proper enquiry and examination of the facts. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, finding no prima facie error in the assessment order.
|
