9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 917 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - section 14A disallowance - Held that - The assessee has shown profit on sale on investment of ₹ 3,21,933/- in its statement of computation for assessment year 2011-12. The assessee in its reply to the show cause notice has specifically contended that the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. The amount of ₹ 3,21,933/- shown in the computation of income is not exempt income. It has been offered as short term capital gain - there is no question of apportioning the expenses on exempt income. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chemnivest Ltd. vs. CIT 2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT held that section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. Further in the case of CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. 2017 (4) TMI 298 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , also took a similar view that Section 14A cannot be invoked where no exempt income was earned by the assessee. Therefore, we find that the order of the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, no revision under section 263 of the Act is warranted for disallowance under section 14A of the Act. Deletion of assets from block of assets - Held that - As seen that there is no reference in the assessment order about this issue. The assessee contended before the Ld. PCIT that value of lease hold improvement was completely extinguished or written off by the assessee, therefore, it should not be reduced from the block of assets for the purpose of computation of depreciation. The assessee has not given any explanation regarding the write off of furniture and fixtures . As we have noted above there is no reference about the issue in the assessment order, if it was examine by the AO or not, therefore, non consideration of the issue by the AO makes the order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the contention of the ld. AR of the assessee on this issue is not acceptable. Interest paid on late deposit of tax - Held that - We have noted that this issue has not been examined by the Assessing Officer as there is no reference in the assessment order. Therefore, we uphold the order passed by ld. PCIT on this issue. Revised relates to packing material not routed through P&L Account - Held that - Perusal of assessment order reveals that AO has not discussed the issue while allowing relief to the assessee. We have further noted that the PCIT has recorded that the submission of AR found to be acceptable, however, it was further observed by the PCIT that necessary details regarding opening stock, purchase, consumption/sale and the closing stock at the end of the year was not furnished. On the basis of his observation Ld. PCIT concluded that AO failed to made enquiry and proper application of mind, therefore, the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. PCIT has accepted the submission of assessee on the issue and not identified as to which information or details were not furnished. Once the Ld. PCIT accepted the explanation and reasoning furnished by the assessee no further necessary details are required to be verified with regard to opening stock, purchase and consumption and closing stock. Therefore, in our view the order on this issue is not erroneous. - Appeal decided partly in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT). 2. Direction to enhance disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. 3. Direction to disallow depreciation claimed by the appellant. 4. Alleged perverse finding regarding the write-off of furniture and fixtures. 5. Direction to disallow interest paid on late deposit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). 6. Direction to modify the assessment order considering details relating to opening stock, purchases, consumption/sale, and closing stock. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Invocation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Pr. CIT: The appeal was directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263, which revised the assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The appellant contended that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co Ltd, emphasizing that for Section 263 to be invoked, the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was concluded that the Pr. CIT must satisfy both conditions to revise the assessment order. 2. Direction to Enhance Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act: The Pr. CIT directed the AO to enhance the disallowance under Section 14A. The appellant argued that no exempt income was earned during the year, and thus, no disallowance was warranted. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not earned any exempt income, and the disallowance under Section 14A was mechanically allowed without application of mind. Citing various judicial precedents, including Chemnivest Ltd. vs. CIT and CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income is earned. Therefore, the order of the AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on this issue. 3. Direction to Disallow Depreciation Claimed by the Appellant: The Pr. CIT directed the AO to disallow depreciation claimed by the appellant due to discrepancies in the depreciation schedule. The Tribunal observed that the AO had not examined the issue, as there was no reference in the assessment order. The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's conclusion that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue due to non-consideration of the issue by the AO. 4. Alleged Perverse Finding Regarding the Write-Off of Furniture and Fixtures: The appellant argued that the Pr. CIT made a perverse finding regarding the write-off of furniture and fixtures. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not examined this issue, and the assessee failed to provide any explanation regarding the write-off. Therefore, the Tribunal agreed with the Pr. CIT that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue due to the lack of examination by the AO. 5. Direction to Disallow Interest Paid on Late Deposit of TDS: The Pr. CIT directed the AO to disallow the interest paid on the late deposit of TDS, treating it as a penalty. The appellant contended that the interest was compensatory and allowable under Section 37. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not examined this issue, as there was no reference in the assessment order. The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's conclusion that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue due to non-examination by the AO. 6. Direction to Modify the Assessment Order Considering Details Relating to Opening Stock, Purchases, Consumption/Sale, and Closing Stock: The Pr. CIT directed the AO to modify the assessment order after considering the details relating to opening stock, purchases, consumption/sale, and closing stock. The appellant argued that the closing stock of packing material was routed through the P&L Account. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not discussed this issue in the assessment order. However, the Pr. CIT accepted the appellant's explanation but concluded that necessary details were not furnished. The Tribunal found that once the Pr. CIT accepted the explanation, no further details were required. Therefore, the order on this issue was not erroneous. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, except for the issue related to the deletion of assets from the block of assets. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.
|
