9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 6 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - A.O. did not make any enquiry with regard to assessee's claim towards provision for warranty expenses - HELD THAT - AO has passed the order without making any enquiry on this issue and the same would render the order erroneous and in view of its tax implications, the same would cause prejudice to the interests of revenue. Before us, the Ld A.R submitted that the assessment order cannot be considered to be prejudicial to the interests of revenue as the claim of the assessee is supported by the decision rendered by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd 2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT . The fact remains that the AO has not made any enquiry with the regard to the impugned claim and hence Explanation 2 to sec.263(1) shall apply to the facts of the present case. There should not be any doubt that, unless the facts relating to the claim are examined, the question of application of the decision rendered by Hon ble Supreme Court cannot be examined. No no infirmity in the revision order passed by Ld Pr. CIT. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
Challenging validity of revision order passed by the Principal CIT under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The appellant challenged the revision order passed by the Principal CIT for the assessment year 2014-15 under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant, engaged in marketing industrial machinery and providing software services, had its assessment completed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act, accepting the total income returned. The Principal CIT observed that the AO did not inquire into the deduction claimed by the appellant towards "provision for warranty expenses." Consequently, the Principal CIT found the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest, initiating revision proceedings. The appellant contended before the Principal CIT that the provision for warranty was properly accounted for, but since the AO failed to verify the issue and discrepancies were noted, the Principal CIT set aside the assessment order, directing the AO to re-examine all issues and redo the assessment. The appellant appealed against this decision. The Tribunal discussed the legal position regarding the power of the CIT to invoke revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act, citing the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's interpretation in Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT and the Supreme Court's ruling in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT. The Supreme Court held that for section 263 to apply, the assessment order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interests. In the present case, the AO did not investigate the appellant's claim of "Provision for warranty expenses," making the order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The appellant argued that the claim was supported by a Supreme Court decision, but the Tribunal found that without proper inquiry by the AO, the applicability of the decision could not be determined. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the revision order, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the revision order passed by the Principal CIT, as the assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interests due to the lack of inquiry by the AO regarding the appellant's claim. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Principal CIT, dismissing the appellant's appeal.
|
