2018 (2) TMI 870 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - how order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ? - Held that - In the instant case, the assessee has provided the entire information to A.O. at the time of assessment, which was being verified by the A.O. before completing assessment. This is evidenced by the questionnaire issued by the A.O. as well as the information furnished by the assessee at the time of assessment. In the consequential order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act, the A.O. has not made any specific disallowance in respect of the issues raised by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Act except the estimated additions. The Ld. PCIT has not made out a case of not conducting the enquiry on any of the issues, hence, we are unable to sustain the order of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and no reason to hold the assessment order passed by the A.O. was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We set aside the order of Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Examination of current liabilities and reserves & surplus.
2. Verification of interest claim.
3. Cross-verification of claims and liabilities.
4. Verification of unsecured loans and expenses.
5. Verification of fixed assets additions and depreciation claims.
6. Information on current asset in the name of T. Neelima.
7. Examination of capital introduction.
8. Verification of payments violating section 40A(3).
9. Verification of various expenses debited to the P&L account.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Examination of Current Liabilities and Reserves & Surplus:
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) found that the Assessing Officer (A.O.) did not examine the current liabilities amounting to ?6.06 crores and reserves & surplus of ?4.38 lakhs. The assessee argued that these were verified during the assessment proceedings, and the same information was provided to the PCIT during the revision, with no defects found.

2. Verification of Interest Claim:
The PCIT noted that the A.O. did not examine the assessee's claim of ?1.01 crores as interest. The assessee contended that all relevant information was provided and verified by the A.O. during the assessment, and the PCIT did not find any errors in the documentation.

3. Cross-verification of Claims and Liabilities:
The PCIT highlighted the lack of cross-verification with corresponding parties regarding claims and liabilities. The assessee maintained that the A.O. had verified all claims and liabilities with the books of accounts and no discrepancies were found.

4. Verification of Unsecured Loans and Expenses:
The PCIT pointed out that unsecured loans of ?15.66 lakhs and various expenses totaling ?5.6 crores were not verified. The assessee argued that all vouchers and books of accounts were examined by the A.O. during the assessment, and no issues were raised.

5. Verification of Fixed Assets Additions and Depreciation Claims:
The PCIT stated that the A.O. did not verify the additions to fixed assets for which depreciation was claimed. The assessee responded that all relevant vouchers and books of accounts were provided and verified by the A.O.

6. Information on Current Asset in the Name of T. Neelima:
The PCIT noted that the A.O. did not obtain information regarding a current asset in the name of T. Neelima. The assessee clarified that T. Neelima was a partner who had overdrawn amounts, which was shown as an asset, and interest was charged accordingly.

7. Examination of Capital Introduction:
The PCIT observed that the A.O. did not examine the source of capital introduction in the capital accounts. The assessee explained that the source of capital for partner Mr. T. Venkata Reddy was provided, including his PAN number and tax assessment details.

8. Verification of Payments Violating Section 40A(3):
The PCIT mentioned that the A.O. did not verify payments violating section 40A(3) despite audit remarks. The assessee argued that all relevant information was provided and verified during the assessment.

9. Verification of Various Expenses Debited to the P&L Account:
The PCIT claimed that the A.O. did not verify the genuineness of various expenses debited to the P&L account. The assessee contended that all expenses were verified with the books of accounts and vouchers during the assessment.

Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal found that the A.O. had conducted enquiries and verified the books of accounts during the assessment. It was noted that the PCIT's revision was based on the belief that the enquiries were inadequate, not absent. The Tribunal emphasized that inadequate enquiry cannot justify revision under section 263 of the Act, citing precedents that support this view. The Tribunal concluded that the A.O.'s assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, and thus, the PCIT's revision order was set aside.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was set aside, as the A.O. had conducted the necessary enquiries and verifications during the assessment. The Tribunal ruled that the PCIT cannot invoke revision under section 263 for inadequate enquiry if the A.O. has already conducted a reasonable enquiry and found no discrepancies.

← Previous Next →