2022 (7) TMI 853 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - withdraw the credit of TDS claimed and allowed in assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Act with a direction to the AO to allow the same in the year when the corresponding income was offered by the assessee to tax after necessary verification - HELD THAT - Issues pointed out by the PCIT in his impugned order were not that material or relevant to examine the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of land vacation compensation charges, and since the factual position which the learned PCIT wanted the AO to ascertain by making inquiry was clearly evident from the details and documents already filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings including the agreement for vacating and handover, we are of the view that it is not a case where the AO can be said to have passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act without inquiries or verification which should have been made in the facts and circumstances of the case as envisaged in Explanation 2(a) to Section 263 - In our opinion, there was thus no error in the order of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on this issue as alleged by the learned PCIT calling for revision under Section 263 of the Act. We accordingly cancel the impugned order passed by the learned PCIT u/s 263 to the extent it revises the order of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on the issue of assessee s claim for deduction on account of land vacation compensation charges. We, however, uphold the said order passed u/s 263 of the Act on the issue of the claim of the assessee for credit of TDS as the same was wrongly allowed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act as agreed even by the learned Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing before us. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Disallowance of land vacation compensation charges.
3. Disallowance of excess cost of land sold.
4. Disallowance of employee benefit expenses.
5. Disallowance of purchases.
6. Revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
7. Claim of TDS credit.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in filing the appeal:
The appeal was filed with a delay of 25 days due to the complete lockdown declared in the country to prevent the spread of the Coronavirus. The Tribunal condoned the delay and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merit.

2. Disallowance of land vacation compensation charges:
The assessee, a company engaged in real estate business, claimed Rs.10 crore as land vacation compensation charges paid to M/s. Bosch Rexroth India Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs.2,00,92,889/- of this amount, relating to land not sold during the year. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) found errors in the AO's assessment, asserting that the entire Rs.10 crore should have been disallowed and capitalized as Work in Progress (WIP). The PCIT issued a notice under Section 263, questioning the AO's decision and citing the need for further inquiries into the ownership and lease details of the land. However, the Tribunal found that the AO had made necessary inquiries and allowed the claim partly after due consideration, thus holding that the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

3. Disallowance of excess cost of land sold:
The AO disallowed Rs.20,67,990/- as excess cost of land sold. The Tribunal did not find specific discussion on this issue in the provided judgment text, implying that it was not a point of contention in the appeal.

4. Disallowance of employee benefit expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs.20,56,412/- as employee benefit expenses. Similar to the excess cost of land sold, the Tribunal did not elaborate on this issue, suggesting it was not contested in the appeal.

5. Disallowance of purchases:
The AO disallowed Rs.7,00,45,639/- as purchases. The Tribunal's judgment did not specifically address this issue, indicating it was not a focal point of the appeal.

6. Revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The PCIT revised the AO's order under Section 263, citing the AO's failure to make necessary inquiries. The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed made inquiries and considered relevant documents before allowing the claim partly. Thus, the Tribunal canceled the PCIT's order to the extent it revised the AO's decision on land vacation compensation charges but upheld the revision regarding the TDS credit.

7. Claim of TDS credit:
The AO allowed TDS credit of Rs.9,05,000/- even though the corresponding income was not offered to tax in the year under consideration. The Tribunal agreed with the PCIT that this was an error and upheld the PCIT's direction to withdraw the TDS credit, to be allowed in the year when the corresponding income is offered to tax.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal canceled the PCIT's revision of the AO's order concerning the land vacation compensation charges but upheld the revision regarding the TDS credit. The order was pronounced on 15th July 2022 in Ahmedabad.

← Previous Next →