9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 224 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - VAT liability was not considered for disallowance u/s 43B - HELD THAT - The powers u/s 263 can be exercised if the order sought to be revised is erroneous inasmuch as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Hence twin conditions are required to be satisfied one being that order should be erroneous and second, such order should be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The basis of exercising the power by the learned Pr. CIT is that the AO failed to verify the correctness of the disallowance made in the tax audit report. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee has pointed that the learned Pr. CIT failed to consider the fact that no disallowance could be made in the case of VAT as the amount was duly deposited before the due date of filing of the return of income. EPF contribution - as pointed out that the assessee itself had made disallowance, hence no prejudice was caused to the Revenue. DR could not rebut the submissions of the assessee regarding VAT, paid in the government account before the due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act and also the disallowance made by the assessee itself in respect of EPF. It was not a fit case for exercising powers u/s 263 as the learned Pr. CIT did not verify the correct facts from the records before embarking upon the issuance of notice u/s 263 of the Act and initiating the proceedings. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and restore the original assessment order passed by the AO. Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance of PF and ESIC contributions. 3. Claim of loss on disposed-off assets. Summary: 1. Jurisdiction under Section 263: The assessee challenged the order dated 24.03.2022, passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), arguing that the statutory preconditions for invoking Section 263 were not satisfied. The Tribunal emphasized that for the PCIT to exercise jurisdiction under Section 263, the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the PCIT did not verify the facts from the records before initiating proceedings, which is a prerequisite for invoking Section 263. 2. Disallowance of PF and ESIC contributions: The PCIT directed the disallowance of Rs. 99,209/- for PF and Rs. 30,841/- for ESIC, stating these payments were not made within the permitted time. The assessee contended that the VAT liability of Rs. 3,48,324/- was deposited before the due date of filing the return, hence no disallowance was warranted under Section 43B. Additionally, the assessee had already disallowed Rs. 38,652/- for EPF, which was part of the total disallowance of Rs. 83,847/-. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's findings were factually incorrect and that the assessee had indeed made the necessary disallowances, thus no prejudice was caused to the Revenue. 3. Claim of loss on disposed-off assets: The PCIT found that the loss claimed on disposed-off assets was not thoroughly inquired by the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee argued that the details of the loss on sale and scrapping of assets were provided during the assessment proceedings and were disallowed in the computation of income. The Tribunal noted that the AO had made proper inquiries and accepted the assessee's claims, and that the PCIT did not provide any new material evidence to justify the revision under Section 263. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the conditions for invoking Section 263 were not satisfied, as the order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the original assessment order passed by the AO, allowing the appeal of the assessee.
|
