2022 (10) TMI 1207 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Bogus purchases and commission payment - notice u/s 133(6) was issued for confirmation of the parties and that no confirmation, bank account and income tax return from all parties were furnished - HELD THAT - We find that during the assessment, AO vide his specific notice dated 24.06.2016, called the record of purchases as well as commission expenses. The assessee vide its reply dated 08.07.2016, furnished complete details about the purchases as well as commission payment. We find that the reply of assessee in response to show cause notices of purchases and commission payment is duly acknowledged by AO. As recorded above, the AO has not made any reference about such enquiries or reply received by him on both the issues. We find that in reply to show cause notice, the assessee filed details reply, inter alia contending therein that the purchases from the parties are genuine. Assessee furnished bank statement, tax invoices and leger account of the parties. Similarly, for the commission expenses, the assessee furnished the details of both the parties. We find that out of four parties, three parties are located at distant places. CIT has not disputed the existence of the parties, nor the payment against the purchases or the commissions paid or the evidences filed by the assessee to substantiate the purchases or commissions paid is bogus. When commission was paid through account payee cheques on account of sales canvassed by the parties, was not bogus payment. Considering the legal view taken on commission payment and the expenses incurred on purchased and coupled with the facts that the assessing officer during the assessing made sufficient inquires and took a reasonable view on both the issue, so view taken/ adopted by the assessing officer cannot be considered as erroneous view. Once the assessing officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the assessing officer is unsustainable in law. Hence, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the revisionary order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Genuineness of purchase and commission expenses claimed by the assessee.
3. Validity of the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Revisionary Order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee challenged the revisionary order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that the original assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Pr.CIT had issued a show cause notice indicating that the assessment order was erroneous due to non-genuine purchase and commission expenses. However, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made sufficient inquiries during the assessment process, and the assessee had furnished all necessary details, including bank statements, tax invoices, and ledger accounts. The Tribunal concluded that the AO had adopted a reasonable and legally sustainable view, and thus, the revisionary order under Section 263 was not justified.

2. Genuineness of Purchase and Commission Expenses Claimed by the Assessee:
The Pr.CIT questioned the genuineness of the expenses on purchases from two parties and commission payments to two individuals, citing the non-furnishing of confirmations and other documentary evidence by these parties. However, the assessee provided comprehensive details during the assessment, including confirmations, bank statements, and tax returns of the parties involved. The Tribunal noted that the Pr.CIT did not dispute the existence of the parties or the payments made through banking channels. The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents, including CIT Vs M.K. Brothers and CIT Vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd., which held that purchases supported by bills, entries in books of accounts, and payments through cheques could not be considered bogus merely due to non-appearance of suppliers before tax authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal found the purchases and commission payments to be genuine.

3. Validity of the Assessment Order Passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act:
The Tribunal observed that the AO had conducted thorough investigations during the assessment process, as evidenced by specific notices issued and detailed replies furnished by the assessee. Although the assessment order did not explicitly reference these inquiries, the Tribunal held that the AO had made a reasonable and legally permissible decision based on the material available. The Tribunal emphasized that an assessment order need not incorporate exhaustive reasons for every decision, as long as the AO's view is plausible and legally sustainable. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, the Tribunal reiterated that an order could only be revised under Section 263 if it was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, which was not the case here. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the validity of the original assessment order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the revisionary order under Section 263 and affirming the genuineness of the purchase and commission expenses. The Tribunal concluded that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and adopted a reasonable view, making the original assessment order valid and not prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The appeal was decided in favor of the assessee, and the revisionary order was set aside.