Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 349 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - lack of enquiry v/s inadequate enquiry - Unexplained expenditure - as per CIT in support of various expenses like salary and wages, shop rent, license fee and house rent etc. incurred by the assessee there was no details filed by the assessee during the course of proceedings and there was no copy of ledger accounts in respect of these expenses - assessee had made an addition on account of capital of partners and AO had not carried out sufficient verifications in this respect - assessee had not given the details of excise duty tax paid by it and further he held that quantitative records were not maintained - HELD THAT - Assessee during the course of assessment proceedings indicate that Assessing Officer did carryout the necessary investigation and assessee filed the relevant replies which in our opinion are plausible explanations and therefore Assessing Officer rightly passed the assessment order accepting the explanations of the assessee. Assessing Officer took a plausible view and therefore the order passed by the Assessing Officer is not erroneous and therefore the condition for initiating the action u/s. 263 does not arise as on all the issues on which the ld. CIT took u/s. 263 were examined during the assessment proceedings. Jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad in CIT vs. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd. 2015 (3) TMI 17 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT has held where the Assessing Officer made certain queries which were replied to by assessee and after inquiry, being satisfied in respect to any queries replied by the assessee, Assessing Officer accepted declared income and passed the assessment order, Commissioner cannot issue notice u/s. 263 on the ground that Assessing Officer had not made enquiry on certain accepted version of assessee without making any enquiry or verification. As in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers, 2010 (8) TMI 745 - DELHI HIGH COURT held that there is difference between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry and it is only cases of lack of enquiry that the Commissioner is empowered to exercise his revisional powers by calling for and examining the records of any proceedings under the Act and passing orders thereon. CIT was not justified in passing the order u/s. 263 of the Act and directing the Assessing Officer to make assessment order de novo - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the CIT's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the I.T. Act. 2. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's (AO) verification of expenses and other financial details during the original assessment. 3. Validity of the CIT's claim that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legitimacy of the CIT's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the I.T. Act: The assessee argued that the CIT can only exercise jurisdiction under Section 263 if the AO's order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Citing precedents like H.H. Maharaja Raja Pawar Dewas vs. CIT and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, the assessee contended that the CIT lacked the authority to revise the AO’s order since it did not meet both conditions. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the AO had conducted a thorough assessment and that the CIT’s grounds for revision did not demonstrate how the AO’s order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. 2. Adequacy of the AO's verification of expenses and other financial details during the original assessment: The assessee provided detailed responses to the AO’s queries during the original assessment, including explanations and documentation for expenses, rent, license fees, and capital contributions. The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed raised pertinent questions and received satisfactory replies from the assessee. The AO’s decision to accept these explanations was deemed a plausible view, thus not erroneous. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO had applied his mind and made informed decisions based on the information provided. 3. Validity of the CIT's claim that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue: The CIT argued that the AO did not conduct sufficient verification of the expenses and capital contributions, leading to an erroneous and prejudicial order. However, the Tribunal found that the AO had made adequate inquiries and that the explanations provided by the assessee were reasonable. The Tribunal cited several case laws, including CIT vs. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd. and DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation, to support the view that the AO’s order should not be declared erroneous merely because the CIT believed more inquiries were necessary. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT’s order to revise the AO’s assessment was not justified. Conclusion: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, canceling the CIT’s order under Section 263. The Tribunal held that the AO’s original assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, as the AO had conducted a thorough inquiry and made informed decisions based on the evidence provided. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the CIT's directive for a de novo assessment was overturned.
|