2020 (9) TMI 327 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - as per CIT AO has dropped the penalty proceedings without proper verification - Assessee not produce the original challans in respect of payment of VAT and CST - as during the penalty proceedings, the assessee had clearly explained to the AO that the addition was agreed only to avoid unwarranted litigation - HELD THAT - As during the assessment proceedings on issuance of a notice u/s 133(6) to the CTO Bodhan, the CTO had stated that there was a scam in their office due to which the records were not traceable and sought further time to verify the challans forwarded by the ITO. Thus, there is no adverse comment by the CTO or even any implication that challan submitted by assessee may be false or bogus or fake .Assessee had agreed for the disallowance. During the penalty proceedings, assessee had given its explanation which has been accepted by the AO. Since AO has accepted the contentions of the assessee which have not been proved to be incorrect, the said dropping of penalty proceedings by the AO cannot be said to be erroneous. Where the assessee s explanation has been found to be satisfactory by the AO, and there is no adverse finding by the concerned authorities, then the view taken by the AO is one of the possible views and cannot be said to be erroneous. Since the order of CIT does not satisfy the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, we are of the opinion that the order u/s 263 of the Act is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment proceedings based on VAT and CST payments disallowed by AO, Penalty proceedings initiated and dropped by AO, Revision under section 263 by CIT challenging the dropping of penalty proceedings.

Analysis:

1. Assessment Proceedings and Disallowance: The assessee, a firm, filed its return for A.Y. 2015-16 showing VAT and CST payments. The AO, upon verification, found discrepancies and issued a notice to the Commercial Tax Officer (CTO) for verification. The CTO informed about a scam and unavailability of records, leading to disallowance of the claimed amounts by the AO.

2. Penalty Proceedings: The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) but later dropped them after considering the assessee's explanation. The CIT, under section 263, found the dropping of penalty proceedings erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, directing the AO to re-do the penalty order.

3. Assessee's Appeal: The assessee appealed against the CIT's order, arguing that the dropping of penalty proceedings was based on valid explanations, and the AO's decision was not erroneous. The assessee contended that both conditions of being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue must be satisfied for a revision under section 263.

4. Judgment and Analysis: The Tribunal examined the facts and found that the CTO's statement did not imply any falsity in the assessee's claims. The assessee agreed to disallowance due to unavailability of records, and during penalty proceedings, the explanation was accepted by the AO. Since the AO's decision was based on a plausible view and the assessee's explanation was satisfactory, the dropping of penalty proceedings was not erroneous. The Tribunal held that the CIT's order did not meet the conditions required for revision under section 263, setting aside the CIT's order and allowing the assessee's appeal.

5. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, emphasizing that the dropping of penalty proceedings by the AO was not erroneous, as the explanation provided was satisfactory and no adverse findings were present. The order under section 263 by the CIT was deemed unsustainable, leading to the reversal of the CIT's decision.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, highlighting the assessment proceedings, penalty proceedings, the appeal by the assessee, and the final judgment by the Tribunal.