9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 1163 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - undisclosed income and interest and remuneration paid to the partners - HELD THAT - We note that Assessing Officer has raised the question during the assessment stage and assessee has replied to the assessing officer along with relevant documents. Thereafter, assessing officer has applied his mind and examined both the issues, viz undisclosed income and interest and remuneration paid to the partners. Therefore, it cannot be said that the issue has not been examined by the Assessing Officer. Considering this factual position, we note that order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue Revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. u/s. 263 was not in tune with the facts and evidences on record duly explained to the Assessing Officer and verified by him and that being so the order passed u/s 263 of the Act on such erroneous stand is liable to be quashed. Therefore, we quash the order of the ld. PCIT u/s 263 - Appeal of assessee allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) erred in passing a revisionary order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) for AY 2013-14. 2. Whether the AO failed to verify if the income disclosed in the survey was business income, impacting the deduction of interest and remuneration to partners under section 40(b) of the Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Revisionary Order under Section 263 The assessee challenged the correctness of the Pr. CIT's order under section 263, arguing that the original assessment order under section 143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Pr. CIT exercised jurisdiction under section 263, observing that the AO failed to disallow interest and remuneration to partners from the undisclosed income, which should have been assessed under sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C, and 69D, thereby making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Issue 2: Verification of Business Income The Pr. CIT noted that during a survey under section 133A, the assessee's partner admitted to undisclosed income of ?9,00,00,000. The assessee disclosed this income in its Profit and Loss account and claimed deductions for interest and remuneration to partners. The Pr. CIT argued that the AO did not independently verify whether this undisclosed income was indeed business income, as the assessee did not provide specific details or evidence, such as the names of persons from whom the unaccounted money was received. Tribunal's Findings: Examination by AO: The Tribunal observed that the AO had examined and discussed the undisclosed income and the deductions claimed for interest and remuneration in the assessment order. The AO accepted the returned income after scrutinizing the details of construction expenses, sources of capital, and partners' remuneration and interest as per the partnership deed. Assessee's Submissions: The assessee argued that the undisclosed income pertained to its business and was disclosed during the survey. The amended partnership deed authorized the payment of interest and remuneration to partners. The AO had raised specific queries during the assessment, and the assessee had provided detailed explanations and relevant judicial pronouncements. Pr. CIT's Rejection: The Pr. CIT rejected the assessee's contention, stating that the AO relied on the assessee's replies without independent verification. The absence of documentary evidence to correlate the receipts with actual persons led the Pr. CIT to conclude that the income should have been assessed under sections 68/69/69A, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Tribunal's Conclusion: The Tribunal noted that the AO had examined both issues during the assessment stage, as evidenced by the assessment order and the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Suman Paper & Boards Ltd., which held that when an AO adopts one of the permissible courses in law, the order cannot be deemed erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, and the Pr. CIT's order under section 263 was not justified. Final Decision: The Tribunal quashed the Pr. CIT's order under section 263 and allowed the appeal of the assessee. The assessment order under section 143(3) was upheld as valid and not prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Pronouncement: The order was pronounced on 09/11/2021 by placing the result on the Notice Board as per Rule 34(5) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
|
