9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 1113 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - CIT upholding the reassessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for verification of transactions of NSEL commodities and provision of bad debt claimed by the assessee - HELD THAT - The Hon ble High Court Marico Ltd. 2019 (8) TMI 1337 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has clearly pointed out once a query has been raised by the AO during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has responded to that query, it would necessarily follow that the AO has accepted the assessee s submission, so as to not deal with that issue in the assessment order. The Hon ble High Court of Bombay considering another decision of the same High Court in the case of GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. 2015 (1) TMI 832 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has categorically pointed out that an assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act does not reflect any consideration of the issue, it must follow that no opinion was formed by the AO in the regular assessment proceedings. Issues of transactions with NSEL commodities and provision for bad and doubtful debts have been considered by the AO during original assessment proceedings and subsequently in reassessment proceedings, where is error in reassessment order dated 24.03.2022 so as to make the same prejudicial to the interest of revenue, CIT-DR could not controvert the above fact situation except supporting the revision order passed by the PCIT. Complete details were examined by the AO in the reassessment proceedings and framed assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s.144B of the Act after examining these details. Even these were answered by the assessee in reply to questionnaire issued along with notice u/s. 142(1) while completing reassessment. Hence, it is a full verification case and AO has verified complete facts and after verification completed the reassessment. Hence, we find no reason to hold that the reassessment order is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of revenue on this very jurisdictional issue. Hence, we quash the revision order passed by PCIT and allow this appeal of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Verification of transactions in National Spot Exchange Ltd. (NSEL) commodities. 3. Provision for bad debts claimed by the assessee. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Revision Order under Section 263: The PCIT issued a show-cause notice under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, setting aside the assessment order passed by the AO under Section 147 read with Section 144B. The PCIT considered the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue due to the lack of verification of transactions in NSEL commodities and the provision for bad debts claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the AO had already examined these issues during the original assessment proceedings and the reassessment proceedings. The assessee had provided detailed responses to the AO's queries, including contract notes, confirmation statements, and bank account statements. The AO had accepted the assessee's explanations and completed the reassessment without making any adverse findings. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Marico Ltd. vs. ACIT, which held that if a query is raised by the AO during the assessment proceedings and the assessee responds, it implies that the AO has accepted the assessee's submission. The Tribunal also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in PCIT vs. Clix Finance India Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that an order is not erroneous merely because the AO did not record the entire enquiry or verification in the assessment order. 2. Verification of Transactions in NSEL Commodities: The PCIT observed that the AO did not take action to assess Rs. 33,93,000/- being receivable from NSEL commodities and noted that the assessee did not furnish transaction-wise details of trading carried out on the NSEL platform. The PCIT deemed the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for not verifying these transactions. The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed verified the transactions during the reassessment proceedings. The AO had issued a notice under Section 142(1) calling for details of transactions through NSEL, and the assessee had provided the required information. The AO had accepted the explanations and completed the reassessment. The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted a full verification of the transactions and found no error in the reassessment order. 3. Provision for Bad Debts: The PCIT noted that the assessee had claimed a provision for bad debts amounting to Rs. 15,91,000/- as an expenditure in the profit and loss account, which should have been disallowed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal observed that the AO had examined the provision for bad debts during the reassessment proceedings. The assessee had provided details of the bad debts, and the AO had accepted the explanations. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in PCIT vs. Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalp Ltd., which held that an order is not erroneous if the AO has made an enquiry, even if it is considered inadequate. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the AO had conducted a thorough verification of the transactions in NSEL commodities and the provision for bad debts during the reassessment proceedings. The reassessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Order: The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The revision order passed by the PCIT dated 25.07.2024 is quashed.
|
