9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 164 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - Deduction under Section 57 - Assessee case selected for limited scrutiny for verification of Large deduction claimed under Section 57 - HELD THAT - As regards the issue of payment of interest on borrowings and receipt on advances, we observe that the assessee attached a chart showing details of rate of interest paid and received. Besides, the assessee has brought to the notice of the AO that issue on hand was also raised in A.Y.2016-17 which was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and after considering the facts of the case accepted his submission. Thus, after considering the entire facts in entirety and after application of mind, the AO accepted the assessee's explanation. Investment in immovable property - assessee submitted that Annexure 'B' of the tax audit report (which was submitted during the course of assessment proceedings) reflects investment in immoveable property as on 31.03.2016 and additions mainly on construction to the existing property except one new property purchased at K.K. Vihar Ajmer was made during the year. The balance sheet attached with the ROI reflects Housing loan from HDFC bank and payment of interest on housing loan reflects in capital account. Therefore, since entire facts are available on records, the AO did not require any further details particularly where the assessment is selected for limited scrutiny . It is a well settled position of law that if from the assessment records, it is evident that the Ld. AO has made due enquiries in response to which assessee has filed detailed submissions, then even if the assessment order does not discuss all aspects in detail with regards to claim of the assessee, it cannot be held that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The above proposition has been upheld in the case of CIT v. Reliance Communication 2016 (4) TMI 173 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , Smt. Anupama Bharat Gupta 2021 (4) TMI 1000 - ITAT AHMEDABAD , Goyal Private Family Specific Trust 1987 (10) TMI 43 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , CIT v. Mahendra Kumar Bansal 2007 (7) TMI 149 - HIGH COURT, ALLAHABAD - We, thus, find no error in the order of Ld. AO so as to justify initiation of 263 proceedings by the Ld. Pr. CIT. The Ground of appeal raised by the assessee is thus allowed. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Allegation of erroneous and prejudicial assessment order under Section 143(3) concerning the allowability of interest expenses claimed against interest income under Section 57(iii). 3. Verification and inquiry by the Assessing Officer (AO) during the original assessment proceedings. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Order Passed by PCIT: The assessee challenged the validity of the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-1 (PCIT) under Section 263, arguing that it was bad in law, invalid, and required to be quashed. The Tribunal noted that the PCIT initiated proceedings under Section 263, setting aside the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The PCIT observed that the AO had not made adequate inquiry and verification regarding the allowability of interest expenses claimed against interest income under Section 57(iii). 2. Allegation of Erroneous and Prejudicial Assessment Order: The PCIT alleged that the AO failed to verify the nexus between the interest expenditure and interest income earned, as required under Section 57(iii). The PCIT pointed out that the assessee had shown gross income under "income from other sources" and claimed a significant amount as expenditure on borrowed money, which was not sufficiently justified. The PCIT also noted that the assessee made investments in immovable property and related firms/companies, which could have obviated the need to borrow funds. The PCIT concluded that the AO's lack of verification rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. 3. Verification and Inquiry by the AO: The assessee argued that the AO had made detailed inquiries during the assessment proceedings, and the assessment order was passed after due application of mind. The Tribunal examined the notices issued by the AO under Section 142(1) and the replies filed by the assessee, which included detailed explanations and supporting documents. The Tribunal referred to several Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that an order cannot be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue merely because another view is possible. The Tribunal cited cases like Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat-2 v. Shreeji Prints (P.) Ltd., Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 2 v. Shree Gayatri Associates, and others, where it was held that if the AO had made inquiries and taken a plausible view, the order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the AO had made due inquiries and the assessee had provided detailed submissions during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal held that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Consequently, the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 by the PCIT was not justified. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order of the PCIT was quashed. Order Pronounced: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 28-09-2022.
|
