2010 (10) TMI 867 - AT - Income Tax

Jurisdiction u/s 263 for making further disallowance in respect of labour charges - Held that - CITs calculation that labour charges is to be disallowed at Rs. 8,27,726 is totally based on his assumptions and presumptions and cannot be made a basis invoking his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Merely because the AO has decided to disallow sum of Rs. 1 lac on ad hoc basis after making necessary enquiry, that by itself, cannot be a ground to invoke powers under section 263 conferred upon CIT. It is well settled that section 263 does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the CIT for that of the AO, who passed the assessment order unless the decision is held to be erroneous. CIT on perusal of the records opined that the estimate made by the concerned officer was on the lower side and left to the CIT, he would have estimated the income at a higher figure than the One determined by the ITO. That would not vest the CIT with powers to re-examine the accounts and determine the income himself at a higher figure. This is because the ITO has exercised the quasi judicial power vested with him in accordance with law and arrived at a conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the CIT does not fully satisfy with the conclusion, therefore, quash the order passed by CIT, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 for making further disallowance in respect of labour charges.
2. Revision under Section 263 after assessment order under Section 143(3).
3. Permissibility of re-examining accounts/records by CIT under Section 263.
4. Merits of making an addition of Rs. 7,27,756 on account of labour charges.
5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).

Detailed Analysis:
1. The issue of jurisdiction under Section 263 for making further disallowance in respect of labour charges was raised in the appeal. The CIT invoked his jurisdiction under Section 263 and directed the AO to determine the assessee's total income by making a further disallowance of Rs. 7,27,756 out of labour charges. The appellant contested this action by stating that the CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction and failed to appreciate the settled legal position regarding assessment orders framed under Section 143(3). The appellant argued that the CIT cannot re-examine accounts/records and substitute his judgment for that of the AO under Section 263.

2. The issue regarding the revision under Section 263 after the assessment order under Section 143(3) was also raised. The CIT's direction to further disallow Rs. 7,27,756 out of labour charges was challenged by the appellant. The AO had initially disallowed Rs. 1 lac out of labour expenses based on certain observations. The CIT's calculation for disallowance was based on assumptions and presumptions, which the appellant argued did not have a scientific basis. The appellant contended that the CIT's decision to disallow the labour charges was not justified under Section 263.

3. The permissibility of re-examining accounts/records by the CIT under Section 263 was a crucial aspect of the appeal. The appellant highlighted that the AO had already examined and verified the details provided by the assessee before passing the assessment order under Section 143(3). The AO had disallowed a sum of Rs. 1 lac out of labour expenses based on specific reasons. The appellant argued that the CIT's intervention to re-examine the accounts and determine the income at a higher figure was not within the scope of Section 263, as the AO had exercised quasi-judicial powers in accordance with the law.

4. The issue related to the addition of Rs. 7,27,756 on account of labour charges was a key point of contention in the appeal. The CIT's decision to enhance the assessed income by making this addition was challenged by the appellant. The appellant argued that the CIT's calculation for disallowance lacked a proper basis and was solely based on assumptions. The appellant contended that the CIT's order directing the AO to enhance the income was unjustified and should be quashed.

5. Lastly, the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) was raised as an issue in the appeal. The appellant contested the CIT's decision to initiate penalty proceedings based on the disallowance of labour charges. The appellant's arguments against the CIT's actions under Section 263 also applied to the penalty proceedings, emphasizing that the CIT's intervention was not warranted in this case. Ultimately, the ITAT quashed the CIT's order, canceled the direction to enhance the income, and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.