9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 96 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - correctness of the labour expenses - Held that - There is no dispute that CIT-A has exercised his jurisdiction vested u/s.263 in issuing the stated directions for the reason that the Assessing Officer did not conduct the relevant enquiries/verifications qua the abovestated labour expenses of the two assessee s in course of framing the respective regular assessments. We find this reason to be factually incorrect. It emerges that the Assessing Officer had issued Section 142(1) notices in both cases on 29.08.2011 seeking details of the impugned labour expenses. These two assessees filed their respective replies on 14.09.2011 in respect to the said questionnaire alongwith the copy of schedule 7 notes to accounts forming part of the balance sheet regarding TDS on labour payments in question. The same culminated in the impugned regular assessments wherein the Assessing Officer did not make any disallowance in both the cases. We appreciate the fair stand and accept assessees arguments challenging correctness of CIT s orders under challenge in these two cases thereby restoring the abovestated regular assessments in their respective cases. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of CIT's revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Examination of labour expenses and applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) and Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Adequacy of Assessing Officer’s (AO) verification process during the original assessment. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of CIT's Revisionary Jurisdiction under Section 263: The CIT issued Section 263 show cause notices to both assessees, proposing to revise the regular assessments on the grounds that the AO did not conduct adequate enquiries or verifications regarding the labour expenses. The CIT deemed the assessments erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal found this reasoning factually incorrect, noting that the AO had indeed issued Section 142(1) notices seeking details of the labour expenses, and the assessees had provided the necessary replies and documents. The Tribunal referenced the Bombay High Court's decision in Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108), which held that an order cannot be deemed erroneous merely because it lacks elaborate discussion. 2. Examination of Labour Expenses and Applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) and Section 69C: The CIT argued that the AO failed to verify the genuineness of the labour charges and whether TDS was deducted as required under Section 194C. The CIT contended that the labour expenses payable exceeded the entire sum claimed during the relevant period and that the AO did not examine the identity of the labourers or the possibility of unaccounted payments. The Tribunal, however, found that the AO had conducted sufficient enquiries, as evidenced by the replies and documents submitted by the assessees, including the notes to accounts and balance sheet details. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had made an estimated disallowance of 15% of miscellaneous expenses, indicating some level of scrutiny. 3. Adequacy of Assessing Officer’s Verification Process: The CIT's orders were challenged on the grounds that the AO had not properly examined the labour expenses and the identity of the labourers. The Tribunal observed that the AO had issued detailed questionnaires and received comprehensive replies from the assessees, which included ledger accounts, details of sundry creditors, and TDS returns. The Tribunal referenced its own decision in a similar case (ITA No.245/Rjt/2014), where it had set aside the CIT's revisionary order, stating that the AO's decision could not be held erroneous simply due to a lack of elaborate discussion in the assessment order. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the CIT's orders under Section 263 were not justified, as the AO had conducted adequate enquiries and verifications during the original assessments. The Tribunal restored the original assessment orders, allowing the appeals of both assessees. The Tribunal emphasized that an assessment order cannot be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue merely because the CIT disagrees with the AO's conclusions, especially when the AO has adopted a permissible course of action under the law. Final Decision: The appeals of the two assessees were allowed, and the CIT's revisionary orders were set aside, restoring the original assessment orders.
|
