9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1545 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - errors in the assessment-order passed by AO - allowability of prior period expenses, Belated payment of provident funds u/s 36(1)(va), Provision for payment of gratuity, Payments inadmissible u/s 43B and Provision for bad and doubtful debts. HELD THAT - We find that in the present case, the revision-action had been taken by Ld. PCIT on the basis of a proposal mooted by lower-authorities and not on the basis of his own examination and consideration of the record. Therefore, the present case is directly governed by decision of Alfa Laval Lund AB 2021 (11) TMI 327 - ITAT PUNE in which revision action in such a manner was held to be illegal and quashed. As five items of disallowance mentioned by PCIT, at least four items were such which did not require any disallowance and still PCIT has alleged in his show-cause notice. Thus, it is quite manifest that the Ld. PCIT has given approval as a mere formality, merely on the basis of proposal of lower authorities and without examination/consideration of records. Clearly therefore, the revision-action undertaken in the present case is not in accordance with the requirement/mandate of section 263. Therefore, we are inclined to quash such revision-order and restore the original assessment-order. Assessee appeal allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to revision-order passed by Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2015-16 due to alleged errors in the assessment-order passed by Ld. AO. Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal, ITAT Indore, heard an appeal filed by the assessee against the revision-order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Bhopal, under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The revision-order was based on the assessment-order dated 16.06.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Bhopal, for Assessment Year 2015-16, where the total income was assessed at Rs. 16,33,93,930. The PCIT found errors in the assessment-order and directed the AO to re-do the assessment. The assessee challenged this revision-order. The delay in filing the appeal was contested by the assessee, citing the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and relying on the Supreme Court's order granting an extension of the limitation period for filing appeals. As there was no actual delay, the appeal was allowed to proceed. The PCIT found that the AO had not made certain necessary disallowances in the assessment-order, leading to the revision-order under section 263. The assessee's submissions in response to the show-cause notice were deemed insufficient by the PCIT, who concluded that there was a lack of inquiry on the part of the AO, making the assessment-order prejudicial to the revenue's interest. During the appeal, the assessee argued that the revisionary action by the PCIT was illegal and against the provisions of section 263. The AR highlighted discrepancies in the disallowances mentioned by the PCIT and contended that the PCIT did not examine the records properly before passing the revision-order. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions of both sides and relevant legal provisions, found that the revision-action was based on a proposal from lower authorities rather than the PCIT's own examination of records, which was deemed illegal. Citing a similar decision by the ITAT, Pune Bench, the Tribunal quashed the revision-order and restored the original assessment-order. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the revision-order was set aside. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the revision-action undertaken was not in accordance with the requirements of section 263, leading to the quashing of the revision-order and the restoration of the original assessment-order.
|
