2013 (7) TMI 61 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Validity of proceedings non initiation of proceedings u/s 201(1A) - Held that - On a perusal of the assessment order, it becomes absolutely clear that the Assessing Officer has not at all examined the various issues on the basis of which action u/s 263 was initiated It is the primary duty of the Assessing Officer to cross check whether the credit amount appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee was genuine or not Other issues on which the CIT has held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue, have not at all been examined by the Assessing Officer Initiation proceedings u/s 263 cannot be said to be invalid and without jurisdiction Decided against the assessee. Non disclosure of sub contract payment CIT order addition of amount on basis of balance sheet Held that - CIT was not correct in straight away directing the Assessing Officer to add the amount without affording an opportunity to the assessee to reconcile the figures by producing books of accounts and supporting evidences Decided in favor of assessee. Initiating proceedings u/s 201(1A) CIT directed the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 201(1A) Held that - Assessee deducted tax but had defaulted in remitting the same into government account Proceedings for assessment and proceedings for levy of interest u/s 201(1A) are distinct and separate proceedings Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue because of non initiation of proceedings u/s 201(1A) CIT has no jurisdiction to direct the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 201(1A) Decided in favor of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings initiated under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition of Rs.42,28,292/- to the income of the assessee.
3. Determination of profit from sub-contract work.
4. Disallowance of excess sales tax payment under Section 43B.
5. Disallowance of excess claim towards departmental recoveries.
6. Discrepancy in the value of addition to plant and machinery.
7. Disallowance of interest accrued but not paid under Section 43B.
8. Direction to initiate proceedings under Section 201(1A) for non-deduction of tax at source.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Proceedings Initiated Under Section 263:
The assessee's appeal challenged the validity of the proceedings initiated under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT exercised powers under Section 263, calling for assessment records and identifying several issues that were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's action, stating that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not examined the various issues and had passed the order in a summary manner. The initiation of proceedings under Section 263 was deemed valid and within jurisdiction.

2. Addition of Rs.42,28,292/- to the Income of the Assessee:
The CIT directed the AO to add Rs.42,28,292/- to the assessee's income, based on discrepancies in the balance sheets of the assessee and M/s K. Paramanda Reddy & Co. The Tribunal noted that the CIT should have afforded an opportunity to the assessee to reconcile the figures. The issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration, with directions to examine the books of accounts of both the assessee and M/s K. Paramanda Reddy & Co.

3. Determination of Profit from Sub-Contract Work:
The CIT directed the AO to determine the profit from sub-contract work of Rs.5,12,63,659/-. The assessee contended that there was no profit element as the work was executed on a back-to-back basis. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

4. Disallowance of Excess Sales Tax Payment Under Section 43B:
The CIT directed the AO to disallow an amount of Rs.4,75,850/- claimed towards sales tax payment. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the entire sales tax amount was paid within the due date of filing the return and to make disallowances only if discrepancies were found.

5. Disallowance of Excess Claim Towards Departmental Recoveries:
The CIT directed the AO to disallow an amount of Rs.1,59,716/- for excess claims towards departmental recoveries. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for verification and to make additions if discrepancies were found.

6. Discrepancy in the Value of Addition to Plant and Machinery:
The CIT identified discrepancies in the addition to plant and machinery. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the facts and decide the issue after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

7. Disallowance of Interest Accrued but Not Paid Under Section 43B:
The CIT directed the AO to disallow Rs.1,22,885/- being interest accrued but not paid. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to decide after providing the assessee with an opportunity to present their case.

8. Direction to Initiate Proceedings Under Section 201(1A):
The CIT directed the AO to initiate proceedings under Section 201(1A) for non-deduction of tax at source. The Tribunal held that the CIT had no jurisdiction to direct the AO to initiate such proceedings in the context of revising an order under Section 143(3). The AO was directed to redo the assessment without being influenced by the CIT's observations.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed both the assessee's and the department's appeals for statistical purposes, directing the AO to re-examine the issues afresh, provide reasonable opportunities for the assessee to be heard, and arrive at independent conclusions based on verified facts and materials.

← Previous Next →