2022 (6) TMI 292 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground that no independent enquiry or verification of the details were made by the A.O - addition of capital account by the partner in cash - HELD THAT - We are of the considered view that the ld. AR has specifically demonstrated that the Assessing Officer has made enquiries on the issue of capital introduced by the partner Shri Saurabh Goyal amounting to Rs.1.38 crores, out of which 1.04 crores were received by the assessee through banking channel and Rs.34,00,000/- in cash. From the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s. 142(1) dated 08.10.2018, question No. 3 there under (assessee s paper book page 59 to 60), it is amply clear that the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to file all the details relating to capital introduction by the partners. Assessing Officer has made sufficient enquiry on the issue of capital introduced by the partner during the relevant year. We may also point out that as per decision in the case of Kesharwani Sheetalaya 2020 (4) TMI 765 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT the onus lay on the assessee firm regarding capital introduced by the partners is discharged and the Assessing Officer was quite correct and justified in accepting the explanation of the assessee in this regard. Therefore, we are compelled to hold that the Assessing Officer has made sufficient enquiries on this issue and therefore, ld. PCIT was not correct in holding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue on this count. Unsecured loan creditors - As there was no iota of doubt regarding identity and creditworthiness of this loan creditor and the Assessing Officer was right in not pointing out any doubt. Regarding another loan creditor Smt. Manju Goyal, who is mother of one of the partners, it is discernible that she is also earning income from liquor business having turnover of Rs.3.84 crores and gave loan to the assessee firm only of Rs.5 lacs, which is less than her returned income. Similar case is of third loan creditor Smt. Sarika Goyal, who is wife of one of the partners and gave loan of Rs.45,25,000/- to the assessee firm. Smt. Sarika Goyal is also earning income from liquor business having turnover of Rs.26.89 crores and returned income of Rs.48.78 lacs which is higher to the fresh loan given to the assessee firm. Therefore, we are unable to see any ambiguity, perversity or any valid reason to disturb the view taken by the Assessing Officer and accepting the unsecured loan creditors as shown by the assessee. Therefore, we feel satisfied that the Assessing Officer has made sufficient enquiry on the issue on unsecured loan creditors and thereafter allowed the claim of assessee regarding unsecured loans shown in the balance sheet. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the ld. PCIT that the Assessing Officer has not made enquiry in this regard and therefore, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. As in recent judgment in the case of Delhi Airport Metro Express P. Ltd. 2017 (9) TMI 529 - DELHI HIGH COURT we hold that the ld. PCIT can exercise revisionary powers u/s. 263 of the Act in case he feels that the Assessing Officer has not made adequate and sufficient enquiry on a particular issue, then the ld. PCIT is required to undertake enquiries himself to allege the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and without such exercise, valid jurisdiction to revise assessment order u/s. 263 of the Act cannot be assumed and exercised. Therefore, in view of foregoing discussion, we reach to a logical conclusion that the ld. PCIT was not correct in alleging the impugned assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) dated 17.12.2018 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue - Appeal of assessee allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Assumption of power under Section 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT).
2. Non-initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271B.
3. Improper disclosure of unsecured loans in the return of income.
4. Failure to furnish proof of the source of investment in fixed assets.
5. Non-verification of the source of cash investment by a partner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Assumption of Power under Section 263 by PCIT:
The main ground of appeal was the assumption of power under Section 263 by the PCIT, holding the assessment order dated 17.12.2018 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The PCIT issued a show cause notice (SCN) on 25.01.2021, identifying discrepancies such as non-initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271B, improper disclosure of unsecured loans, failure to furnish proof of the source of investment in fixed assets, and non-verification of the source of cash investment by a partner. The appellant contended that the PCIT did not conduct a minimal inquiry to support his findings.

2. Non-initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271B:
The PCIT identified the non-initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271B as a discrepancy. However, the detailed analysis and arguments presented did not specifically address this issue, suggesting that it was not a primary focus of the appeal.

3. Improper Disclosure of Unsecured Loans:
The PCIT alleged that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to examine the creditworthiness of loan creditors. The appellant provided detailed replies, including ITRs, bank statements, and confirmations for loan creditors such as Lokesh Chand, Manju Goyal, and Sarika Goyal. The AO had conducted inquiries and accepted the explanations provided. The tribunal found that the AO made sufficient inquiries and accepted the unsecured loans after due verification, making the PCIT's allegation unsustainable.

4. Failure to Furnish Proof of Source of Investment in Fixed Assets:
The PCIT noted that the source of investment in fixed assets was not furnished with supporting documentary evidence. The appellant argued that the complete bank statements and schedules of fixed assets were provided during the assessment proceedings. The tribunal observed that the AO did not make any addition/disallowance on this issue in the consequential order passed on 31.03.2022, indicating that the objection did not survive.

5. Non-verification of the Source of Cash Investment by a Partner:
The PCIT rejected the explanation regarding the source of cash investment of Rs. 34,00,000 by a partner, Saurabh Goyal, from his liquor business. The appellant provided detailed evidence, including capital accounts, ITRs, cash books, audited balance sheets, and bank statements. The AO had conducted inquiries and accepted the explanations. The tribunal held that the AO made sufficient inquiries and took a plausible view, making the PCIT's allegation unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the PCIT did not make further inquiries himself and proceeded to hold the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue without considering the detailed replies and explanations provided by the assessee. The tribunal held that the PCIT could not assume valid jurisdiction under Section 263 without conducting further inquiries himself. Consequently, the tribunal quashed the revisionary order under Section 263 and all consequent proceedings and orders, allowing the appeal of the assessee.