2024 (4) TMI 736 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - As per CIT, AO has not examined the issue of interest expenditure claimed against interest from third party - SCN was issued relating to advancing of borrowing funds to the third parties without utilizing the funds for assessee's own business - HELD THAT - We find that the in the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act specific questions have been raised in point 6 with regard to the investments/loans appearing in the balance sheet and justification regarding interest paid to others has been asked for. The assessee had made detailed submissions and after considering the same, the assessment has been completed and in the body of the assessment order, this issue has been dealt by the AO. Assessing Officer has extensively examined this issue and has taken a plausible view after proper application of mind. It is not the case of no enquiry or incomplete enquiry. AO has carried out a detailed enquiry and after considering the fact that the assessee being into real estate project has borrowed funds from SREIIFL for the business purpose and for short term when the funds were idle as a prudent business man and for commercial expediency, the funds were utilized for giving loan to another concern. AO fairly dealt with this issue and on observing that interest expenditure has been claimed in the interest of business has allowed the said claim. Under these given facts and circumstances, we firstly find that the assessment order is not erroneous as a detailed enquiry has been conducted and secondly not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the assessee has set off the interest expenditure against the interest income earned from applying the short term loans and advances - Revisionary proceedings u/s 263 quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT).
2. Setting aside the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) by the Pr. CIT.
3. Examination of the issue of interest expenditure by the Assessing Officer (AO).
4. Whether the order u/s 143(3) could be revised u/s 263 when an appeal is pending.
5. Compliance with Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
6. Validity of the Pr. CIT's order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

Summary:

Assumption of Jurisdiction u/s 263:
The assessee challenged the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Pr. CIT, arguing that the order passed u/s 263 was bad in law. The Tribunal examined whether the Pr. CIT had valid grounds to assume jurisdiction and found that the Pr. CIT had called for assessment records and issued a show cause notice regarding the interest expenditure claimed.

Setting Aside the Assessment Order:
The Pr. CIT set aside the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) on the grounds that the AO had not conducted sufficient inquiries or verification regarding the genuineness of the expenses. The Tribunal noted that the AO had indeed conducted a detailed inquiry and had taken a plausible view.

Examination of Interest Expenditure:
The Tribunal found that the AO had examined the issue of interest expenditure in detail during the assessment proceedings. The AO had considered the assessee's explanation that the borrowed funds were advanced to a third party to avoid an NPA account, which was a commercially expedient decision.

Pending Appeal and Revision u/s 263:
The assessee argued that the order u/s 143(3) could not be revised u/s 263 as an appeal was pending. The Tribunal did not find this argument sufficient to invalidate the revisionary proceedings initiated by the Pr. CIT.

Compliance with Section 36(1)(iii):
The Pr. CIT argued that the interest expenditure did not fulfill the conditions of Section 36(1)(iii) as the borrowed funds were not used for the assessee's own business. The Tribunal, however, found that the AO had allowed the interest expenditure based on commercial expediency, which was a plausible view.

Validity of Pr. CIT's Order:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The AO had conducted a detailed inquiry and had taken a plausible view in allowing the interest expenditure. Therefore, the revisionary proceedings u/s 263 were quashed, and the assessment order was restored.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 was quashed. The original assessment order was restored.