9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 1032 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Held that - A.O. has examined each and every of the issues, as per law. The order of ld. CIT is directory in the nature which is based on his own view as against the taken by the A.O. We don t find any lack of inquiry or even a case of inadequate inquiry. Under section 263, the commissioner cannot substitute his own view. He has not given any valid reason as to how the assessment order is erroneous. He has simply stated that the assessment order dated 7.1.2011 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue to that extent. The intention of this section is somewhat different. In case the A.O. has not made enquiries and taken an erroneous decision regarding an item of income, only then the order can be said to be erroneous on that point. A.O. takes a possible view qua a claim made and the ld. CIT takes another possible view, the order cannot be said to be erroneous.
Issues Involved:
1. Transportation receipts discrepancy. 2. Scrap value of the closing stock of tyres and tubes. 3. Maruti penalty expenses. Detailed Analysis: 1. Transportation Receipts Discrepancy: The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) identified a discrepancy between the transportation receipts as per the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) details and the Profit & Loss Account. The CIT noted a difference of Rs. 28,86,953. The assessee explained that this discrepancy arose due to the accounting treatment adopted by M/s Tata Motors Ltd. and M/s TML Distribution Ltd., where transportation bills issued in April and May were recorded in the TDS certificates for the period ending March 31. The assessee clarified that the transportation receipts were declared correctly, and the difference was due to timing and accounting treatment. The Tribunal found the explanation satisfactory and noted that the Assessing Officer (A.O.) had examined this issue during the assessment proceedings. 2. Scrap Value of the Closing Stock of Tyres and Tubes: The CIT observed that the assessee claimed Rs. 51,75,560 under tyre and tube expenses but did not show any closing stock or income from the sale of old tyres and tubes. The assessee explained that the expenses were divided into new tyre purchases, tyre retreading expenses, and old tyre purchases and retreading expenses. The new tyres were consumed as purchased, and retreaded tyres had negligible scrap value when fully depreciated. The Tribunal found that the A.O. had considered these facts and the explanation provided by the assessee, and there was no lack of inquiry or inadequate inquiry by the A.O. 3. Maruti Penalty Expenses: The CIT noted that the assessee claimed Rs. 1,01,566 under Maruti penalty expenses, which were deemed to be penal in nature and thus disallowable. The assessee argued that these expenses were penalties charged by Maruti for late loading, late delivery, or damage during transportation, and did not constitute a violation of statutory duty or obligation. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's explanation that these were normal business expenses and not penalties for statutory violations. The A.O. had examined and allowed these expenses during the assessment. Conclusion: The Tribunal emphasized that for an order to be revised under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, the twin conditions of 'error in the order' and 'prejudice to the Revenue' must coexist. The CIT must have material to form a prima facie opinion that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests. The Tribunal found that the A.O. had duly examined all the issues raised by the CIT and had taken a possible view based on the facts and explanations provided by the assessee. The CIT's order was deemed to be based on a different view rather than an error in the A.O.'s order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the A.O.'s assessment order, allowing the appeal of the assessee-firm.
|
