2024 (2) TMI 660 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - scope of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 - as per CIT main issue of expenditure relating to incentive on sales remained unverified and only an expenditure relating to sales promotion were examined for which the assessee had furnished details - HELD THAT - The provision contained in section 263 does not allow PCIT to impose his view over judicious view adopted by the AO unless the view adopted by the ld. AO is established to be not at all sustainable in law. In the present case the bench noted that the ld. AO has raised as many as 9 questions only on the sales promotion expenses and the AO in the present case on appreciation of the facts and using his judicial wisdom allowed sales promotion expenses claimed by the assessee. On the view taken by the ld. AO the PCIT tried to impose his view that the AO could not understand the exact claim of the assessee and in that process even the PCIT even issued two notices to the assessee under the confusion. Thus, confusion while issuing the notice does not lead that the assessment is made without making any query in fact we note that the AO has raised as many as 9 questions to the assessee and after careful consideration of the facts and considering the reply of the assessee ld. FAO taken a considered view. PCIT is merely based on the reason that the AO has raised a doubt on the figure computed by the ld. AO and not clarified in the assessment order does not lead the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Further the bench also noted that the assessment in this case is completed in the faceless manner by NFAC. It is a fact that any faceless assessment is carried out through a teamwork of assessment unit, technical unit, review unit, verification unit. Since all these four units are headed by PCIT and the order is to be tested in this regime normally there cannot be a case of prejudice of lack of enquiry because there is application of mind by multiple officers of Department and not by a single officer is involved. Here as it is clear that since the assessee was confronted on all the facets of the claim and he has furnished the requisite information and the NFAC/FAO has completed the assessment after considering over all aspect of the case. Therefore, the order passed by the FAO cannot be termed as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Even the assessee has placed on record and clarified the confusion of the figure noted and based on that details the ld. PCIT did not established that the order is prejudicial. As held in the case of CIT V. K. Ramachandran 2003 (3) TMI 769 - MADRAS HIGH COURT it was held that Record does not mean only record available with ITO at time of passing of assessment order. It would include the records available with the Commissioner at the time of passing of the order by the Commissioner. Manner of conducting enquiries - It is worthwhile to note here that the phrase which should have been made here in no way means that enquiries should have been made in manner as desired by PCIT, rather it means that before holding an order to be erroneous, PCIT should have conducted necessary enquiries or verification which brings on record certain material in order to show that the finding given by the assessing officer is erroneous. Thus, looking to these aspect of the case here in this case the ld. FAO has called for the details on the various facets as many as 9 areas and has examined the issue and thereafter the claim of the assessee was allowed. Thus, once the ld. FAO based on the details placed on record takes a plausible view of the matter the same cannot be subjected to revision u/s. 263 even after the addition of explanation 2 in the Act - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263.
2. Verification of Sales Promotion Expenses.
3. Examination of Business Expenses and Inadequate Inquiry.
4. Explanation of Sales Incentive and Sales Promotion Expenses.
5. Application of TDS on Sales Promotion Expenses.
6. Faceless Assessment and Transparency.

Summary:

1. Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 263:
The assessee argued that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) erred in law and on facts by assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The PCIT's direction was claimed to be contrary to the provisions of law and facts on record, leading to proceedings that deserved to be quashed.

2. Verification of Sales Promotion Expenses:
The PCIT noted that sales promotion expenses amounting to Rs. 80,46,456/- were not verified during the assessment proceedings. The discrepancy arose as the assessee claimed Sales Promotion expenses of Rs. 80,46,456/- in one column and Rs. 3,90,158/- in another. The PCIT issued a show cause notice under Section 263, contending that the main issue of expenditure remained unverified, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

3. Examination of Business Expenses and Inadequate Inquiry:
The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted a detailed inquiry into the business expenses, including sales promotion expenses, and had taken a possible view based on the responses and documents provided. The AO's inquiries included specific questions about the nature, quantum, and details of sales promotion expenses, which the assessee addressed comprehensively.

4. Explanation of Sales Incentive and Sales Promotion Expenses:
The assessee clarified that the amount of Rs. 80,46,456/- was related to sales incentives and not unexplained expenses. The discrepancy was due to the representation of the expenditure in different columns of the Income Tax Return (ITR) form. The PCIT's conclusion that the AO failed to verify these expenses was challenged as being based on a clerical issue rather than a substantive error.

5. Application of TDS on Sales Promotion Expenses:
The assessee argued that the sales promotion expenses were actually purchase discounts given to two parties and did not require Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). One of the parties was another proprietorship of the assessee, making it a transaction between two proprietorships rather than with a third party.

6. Faceless Assessment and Transparency:
The assessment was completed under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, which involves multiple units and levels of review, ensuring transparency and thorough examination. The AO had raised specific questions and received detailed responses, indicating that the assessment was conducted with due diligence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted relevant inquiries and considered the facts before allowing the sales promotion expenses. The PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified as the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order, allowing the assessee's appeal.