2022 (5) TMI 440 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - assessee has claimed expenses on income from dividend and interest on FD in Banks - HELD THAT - There is no res-judicata applicable to income tax proceeding. Hence, if in earlier years something has not been examined and allowed as such, it cannot act as estoppel for the revenue on the issue. As regards the assessee s plea that AO has examined the issue and has given notice on the matter and thereafter taken a view, we are of the considered opinion that we cannot agree with the above proposition as there is no whisper in the order of the AO in this regard. It is settled law that if the AO just keeps the assessee s papers on record without any application of mind on the same, the same cannot act as estopple for the ld.CIT to exercise power u/s. 263. CIT has duly examined the nature of expenses. The expenses are related to medical grants and other grants and J K flood affected employees - CIT is correct in holding that these expenses cannot be said to be expense wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of earning income on dividend and interest income from banks. Provision u/s. 57(iii) are duly applicable on the facts of the case. Though AO has not made any observation, whatsoever, even for arguments sake if it is accepted that AO had adopted a view, the same is patently in contravention of the sanguine provision of law in this regard. So it cannot be said that AO has adopted one of the possible views. CIT has also given a finding that for AY 2017-18 facts are similar and in this case, assessee opted for VSV Scheme to settle the dispute. Subsequent year also, the assessee did not claim these expenses and filed return of income disclosing total income under other sources. We find that above findings have not been disputed by the assessee. The crux of the assessee s submission that since in the past this wrong system had not been objected, the same should be allowed to be continued is thus rejected. Furthermore, the system adopted by the assessee is in contravention of laws and as we have noted the fact that assessee itself has subsequently discontinued this system of claiming the expenses which are totally unrelated to the earning of interest income and exempt dividend income - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Allowability of expenses related to income from dividend and interest.
3. Application of section 57(iii) for deduction of expenses.
4. Consideration of past years' orders and VSVS settlement.
5. Adequacy of opportunity granted to the appellant for submissions.

Issue 1: Validity of order under section 263:
The appeal challenged the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-20, Mumbai under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16. The appellant contended that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, as the Assessing Officer (AO) had applied due inquiry and verification before passing the order. The appellant argued that the view taken by the AO in allowing expense deductions was plausible and based on past years' orders. Furthermore, the appellant asserted that settling a dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme did not imply acquiescence to the decision on the disputed issue. However, the Principal Commissioner found the expenses claimed by the appellant were not directly related to the income from dividend and interest, leading to the order being set aside for fresh assessment after disallowing the expenses.

Issue 2: Allowability of expenses related to income:
The Principal Commissioner noted that the expenses claimed by the appellant, such as Medical Grants and other grants, were not wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of earning income from dividend and interest. The Principal Commissioner invoked section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows deductions only for expenses directly related to earning such income. The order under section 263 was based on the finding that the expenses claimed were not allowable under section 57(iii) as they lacked a direct nexus with the income earned by the appellant.

Issue 3: Application of section 57(iii) for deduction of expenses:
The Tribunal upheld the Principal Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the expenses claimed by the appellant were not related to the income from dividend and interest. The Tribunal agreed that the expenses, including Medical Grants and other grants, did not meet the criteria of being wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of earning such income, as required by section 57(iii). The Tribunal concluded that the expenses claimed were rightly disallowed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 4: Consideration of past years' orders and VSVS settlement:
The appellant argued that since there had been no adverse inference drawn in earlier years and the activities remained consistent, there was no basis for revision proceedings. However, the Tribunal held that previous years' decisions did not act as an estoppel for the revenue. The Tribunal noted that the expenses claimed were not allowable under section 57(iii) and that the appellant's past actions, including opting for the VSVS to settle disputes and not claiming expenses in subsequent years, supported the Principal Commissioner's decision to set aside the assessment order for fresh assessment.

Issue 5: Adequacy of opportunity for submissions:
The appellant raised concerns about not being granted enough opportunity to present elaborate submissions, including case laws and government memoranda related to section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the Tribunal found that the Principal Commissioner had duly examined the nature of expenses and provided an opportunity for a hearing. The Tribunal upheld the order under section 263, concluding that the expenses claimed were rightly disallowed and dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the order passed under section 263, emphasizing the disallowance of expenses not directly related to the income from dividend and interest, in accordance with section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's arguments based on past practices and lack of opportunity for submissions, upholding the decision to set aside the assessment order for fresh assessment.