2015 (10) TMI 318 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Held that - It is observed from the notice issued by the Ld. CIT under section 263 and the detailed reply filed by the assessee to the said notice that most of the issues raised by the Ld. CIT were not only enquired by the A.O. but the claim of the assessee was accepted by him by applying his mind to the relevant facts of the case as well as the material placed on record. In my opinion, the assessment order passed by the A.O. therefore cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on these issues as alleged by the Ld. CIT in his impugned order passed under section 263. Assessment order passed by AO cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue only because the Ld. CIT is of the opinion that some more enquiry should have been made by the A.O. The power under section 263 cannot be extended to hold an order passed by the A.O. as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue due to inadequacy of enquiry. After having perused the impugned order of the Ld. CIT in the light of the facts and material on record and detailed submissions made by the assessee, find that the directions of the Ld. CIT on various issues are in the nature of starting roving and fishing enquiry which is not permissible under section 263 as held inter alia in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 1993 (4) TMI 55 - BOMBAY High Court . CIT has no material before him to consider the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on the issues pointed out by him. A perusal of the discussion made by him in this regard shows that his actions are more like an A.O. in session of assessment proceedings rather than revisional authority exercising power under section 263. It is settled law that the powers under section 263 are required to be exercised by the Ld. CIT sparingly and in genuine cases when due to error committed by the A.O. there is loss to the revenue. Thus no errors in the order of the A.O. passed under section 143(3) as alleged by the Ld. CIT calling for any revision under section 263. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Examination of fixed assets and depreciation.
2. Decrease in gross profit and examination of debit and credit notes.
3. Examination of unsecured loan creditors and application of Section 269T.
4. Reconciliation of sundry creditor with the account of M/s. Nirma Ltd.
5. Examination of secured loans and repayment details.
6. Examination of cash withdrawals and applicability of Section 14A.
7. Examination of rent payments and applicability of Section 40(a)(ia).

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Examination of Fixed Assets and Depreciation
The Ld. CIT raised concerns about the fixed assets and depreciation details not being verified by the A.O. The assessee responded that the fixed assets schedule, depreciation statement, and tax audit report were filed along with the IT return. The Ld. CIT did not point out specific errors in the depreciation claimed, leading to the conclusion that the revision order was erroneously issued without identifying any error or prejudice to the revenue.

Issue 2: Decrease in Gross Profit and Examination of Debit and Credit Notes
The Ld. CIT questioned the decrease in gross profit and the examination of debit and credit notes. The assessee clarified that the A.O. had examined these issues during the assessment proceedings. The assessee provided copies of debit and credit notes and detailed reasons for the profit decrease, which were accepted by the A.O. The Ld. CIT's revision order was deemed to lack merit as the issues were already thoroughly examined by the A.O.

Issue 3: Examination of Unsecured Loan Creditors and Application of Section 269T
The Ld. CIT noted the reduction in unsecured loan creditors without examining relevant payment details and the application of Section 269T. The assessee explained that the reduction was due to the transfer of unsecured loans by book entries and set-offs against partners' individual accounts. The Ld. CIT ignored these explanations and documentary evidence, leading to the conclusion that the revision order was issued without proper consideration of the facts.

Issue 4: Reconciliation of Sundry Creditor with the Account of M/s. Nirma Ltd.
The Ld. CIT raised concerns about the reconciliation of sundry creditors with M/s. Nirma Ltd. The assessee clarified that the accounts showed the same figures with no discrepancies. The Ld. CIT brushed aside this explanation without assigning reasons, leading to the conclusion that the revision order was erroneous on this issue.

Issue 5: Examination of Secured Loans and Repayment Details
The Ld. CIT questioned the examination of secured loans and repayment details. The assessee explained that the A.O. had verified bank account copies and loan repayment details during the assessment. The Ld. CIT did not point out specific deficiencies, leading to the conclusion that the revision order lacked merit on this issue.

Issue 6: Examination of Cash Withdrawals and Applicability of Section 14A
The Ld. CIT raised concerns about cash withdrawals and the applicability of Section 14A. The assessee clarified that the cash withdrawals were recorded in the books of accounts and verified by the A.O. The Ld. CIT's revision order was deemed to be based on suspicion without pointing out specific errors or misappropriation, leading to the conclusion that the revision order was erroneous on this issue.

Issue 7: Examination of Rent Payments and Applicability of Section 40(a)(ia)
The Ld. CIT questioned the examination of rent payments and the applicability of Section 40(a)(ia). The assessee explained that the rent paid to each individual was less than Rs. 1,20,000, making Section 194I inapplicable. The A.O. had examined this issue and found no error. The Ld. CIT's revision order was issued without merit, leading to the conclusion that the revision order was erroneous on this issue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the A.O. had conducted proper and sufficient enquiries on the issues raised by the Ld. CIT. The assessment order passed by the A.O. under section 143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT under section 263 and restored the A.O.'s order. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

← Previous Next →