2022 (12) TMI 1129 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - excess deduction claimed under Section 35 (2AB) - As stated that the assessee has suo moto added back amount while computing the taxable income for the relevant assessment year - HELD THAT - As furnished the relevant extracts of the financial statement for the financial year 2015-2016 highlighting all the relevant details. Further the location wise break up of those items of expenses as reflected in the profit and loss account were also placed before the learned tribunal and it was explained that the items set out in the Column (B)(C)(D)(E) in the above table formed part of the depreciation on scientific research assets; assets written off and profit and loss on sales of asset debited in the profit and loss account. Thus, it was explained that the sum of Rs. 1,34,45,166/- was added back in the computation of income. This aspect of the matter has been analyzed by the learned tribunal and it has found that the said sum was added back in the computation of income and therefore there was absolutely no basis for the PCIT to invoke his power u/s 263 - records clearly show that the assessing officer had issued notices to the assessee on the very same issue considered their reply thereafter pointing out certain discrepancies issued show cause notice for which reply was submitted by the assessee and after a detailed enquiry the assessment has been completed. Thus, it is not a case of lack of enquiry or lack of proper enquiry. PCIT does not in as many words states that there was lack of enquiry or lack of proper enquiry and all that is said is that the assessing officer did not verify these aspects which is factually incorrect. Therefore, it is not a case where the PCIT could have invoked his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. Advertisement expenditure for employment charged by LINKED IN and bank charges therein - Advertisement expenses in June 2014 were admitted as liability and crystallized for payment in the year under consideration owing to the fact that the LINKED IN being non-resident had furnished the necessary documents in the such as TRC under Section 90(4) of the Act read with Rule 21 AB of the Rules and no PE certificate etc. only in the assessment year under consideration. Tribunal noted it is not the case where these expenses were charged as deduction in the preceding year more importantly, the tribunal noted that there is no revenue implication and no prejudice is caused to the revenue since the tax rate applicable to the assessee during the assessment year 2015-2016 to which invoices relates and the tax rates applicable for the assessment year 2016-2017 in which the invoices were accounted and paid were the same. Hon ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Company Limited 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT held that every loss of revenue cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue and if the assessing officer has adopted one of the courses permissible under law or where two views are possible and the assessing officer has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order, unless the view taken by the assessing officer is unsustainable under law. Also on facts the tribunal found that the PCIT has not carried out any enquiry on his own and merely set aside the assessment order and sent the file back to the assessing officer to re-examine the issues which is contrary to the law as laid down in several decisions and the tribunal rightly noted the decision in DG Housing Projects Limited 2012 (3) TMI 227 - DELHI HIGH COURT - No substantial questions of law.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the power to review erroneous orders of the Assessing Officer.
2. Justifiability of invoking Section 263 in cases where Assessing Officer fails to appreciate deductions claimed by the assessee.
3. Correct application of Section 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) and the validity of the order.

Issue 1 - Interpretation of Section 263:
The appeal before the Calcutta High Court involved the interpretation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) setting aside the order under Section 263. The key contention was whether the Assessing Officer's order, even after conducting an enquiry, could be reviewed under Section 263 if found to be erroneous. The Court noted that the Tribunal extensively considered the factual aspects and granted relief to the assessee. The Court emphasized that unless the Tribunal's order is perverse or ignores vital facts, interference is not warranted in an appeal under Section 260A.

Issue 2 - Failure to Appreciate Deductions:
The case also addressed the issue of whether Section 263 could be invoked when the Assessing Officer, despite conducting an enquiry, failed to appreciate that deductions claimed by the assessee did not comply with the law. In this context, the PCIT issued a show cause notice highlighting discrepancies in the deductions claimed. However, the assessee provided detailed explanations and evidence to support their deductions, demonstrating that the Assessing Officer had indeed considered these aspects during the assessment process. The Court found that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was unwarranted as the Assessing Officer had conducted proper enquiries and the deductions were correctly accounted for.

Issue 3 - Application of Section 263 by PCIT:
The PCIT's decision to set aside the assessment order under Section 263 was also scrutinized. The Court observed that the PCIT concluded that the Assessing Officer did not verify certain issues, leading to the order being deemed erroneous. However, the Court found that the Assessing Officer had indeed examined the relevant aspects, issued notices, and conducted detailed enquiries before finalizing the assessment. The Court referenced the principle laid down in the Malabar Industrial Company Limited case, emphasizing that every loss of revenue does not necessarily indicate prejudice to the revenue's interest. The Court further highlighted that the PCIT's actions were not in line with established legal principles, as reiterated in various judicial decisions.

In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial questions of law for consideration. The Court upheld the ITAT's decision, emphasizing the importance of factual analysis and proper application of legal provisions in tax assessments.