2023 (1) TMI 1032 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - mandatory Form No. 10CCB not been electronically filed by the assessee along with the return of income - As per CIT assessee has failed to comply with the provisions of section 80IE(6) r/w section 80IA(7) of the Act and therefore the AO ought to have disallowed the assessee s claim of deduction under section 80IE - HELD THAT - Assessee filed the audit report physically in Form No. 10CCB duly signed and verified by the Chartered Accountant along with the profit and loss account in respect of Assam undertaking before the jurisdictional AO on 27/10/2017. From the perusal of the submission dated 27/10/2017, forming part of the paper book it is evident that it is not the case wherein accounts of the undertaking, in respect of which deduction under section 80IE of the Act was claimed, were not audited by an accountant and audit report was not prepared in Form No. 10CCB. Only due to technical impediment, the said audit report in Form No. 10CCB could not be filed electronically, which was physically filed by the assessee on 27/10/2017 before filing the return of income on 28/10/2017. As per the assessee, only from the next year Form No.10CCB under section 80IE of the Act can be furnished electronically. Nothing has been brought on record to controvert the aforesaid claim of the assessee. Therefore, merely on a technical ground, it cannot be held that the assessment order allowing the claim of deduction under section 80IE of the Act is erroneous, particularly in view of the fact that the AO had raised queries regarding the said deduction, which were duly responded by the assessee. Thus, we find no basis in upholding the impugned order passed under section 263 of the Act on the basis of aforesaid allegations. As a result, ground No. 2 raised in assessee s appeal is allowed. Unexplained cash deposits - AO did not make any enquiry regarding the cash deposits by the assessee in SBN during the demonetisation period - HELD THAT - From the perusal of relevant portions of ITR 6, filed by the assessee, for the year under consideration, we find that the assessee had duly made the disclosure regarding the cash deposited from 09/11/2016 to 30/12/2016. Further, in auditor s report we find that requisite disclosure was made in the financial statements regarding dealings in SBN during the period from 08/11/2016 to 30/12/2016 - Assessee has also provided the denomination of the cash deposited in SBN during the demonetisation period. It cannot be denied that the return of income along with audited financial statements was sought by the AO during the assessment proceedings and the same was also duly submitted by the assessee. Therefore, when the assessee had made all the disclosures in its income tax return as well as in its audited financials regarding the cash deposited in SBN during the demonetisation period, we do not find any merit in the allegation made in the impugned order passed under section 263 of the Act. As a result, ground No. 3 raised in assessee s appeal is allowed. Whether Assessment Order passed by the ACIT 9(2)(2), Mumbai u/s 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue? - Clauses (a) of Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case and thus the revision order passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act is set aside. As a result, ground No. 1 raised in assessee s appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Compliance with provisions of section 80IE(6) read with section 80IA(7) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Enquiry regarding cash deposits in Specified Bank Notes (SBN) during the demonetization period.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The assessee challenged the order dated 27/03/2022 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). The PCIT held that the assessment order dated 06-Dec-2019 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's order was based on the assumption that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not conduct necessary inquiries. However, the Tribunal noted that the AO had indeed raised queries regarding the deduction claimed under section 80IE, which were duly responded to by the assessee. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, and the revision order under section 263 was not justified.

2. Compliance with Provisions of Section 80IE(6) Read with Section 80IA(7) of the Income Tax Act:
The PCIT alleged that the assessee failed to comply with the provisions of section 80IE(6) read with section 80IA(7), as the audit report in Form No. 10CCB was not electronically filed. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had physically filed the audit report in Form No. 10CCB before the AO due to the unavailability of an online filing option. The Tribunal found that the audit report was duly signed and verified by a Chartered Accountant and was submitted before the date of filing of the return of income. The Tribunal held that the mere technicality of not filing the report electronically did not render the assessment order erroneous, especially since the AO had raised and addressed queries regarding the deduction. Therefore, the Tribunal found no basis for upholding the PCIT's order on this ground.

3. Enquiry Regarding Cash Deposits in Specified Bank Notes (SBN) During the Demonetization Period:
The PCIT also alleged that the AO did not make any enquiry regarding the cash deposits of Rs. 6,87,500 in SBN during the demonetization period. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed the cash deposits in its income tax return and audited financial statements. The Tribunal found that the AO had access to these documents during the assessment proceedings and thus had the necessary information. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had made all required disclosures, and there was no merit in the PCIT's allegation. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground as well.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the revision order passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 was not justified as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Tribunal set aside the revision order and allowed the appeal by the assessee. The decision was pronounced in the open Court on 24/01/2023.