2012 (9) TMI 363 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of assumption of jurisdiction by Commissioner u/s 263 reassessment purported on ground that discount allowed cannot be claimed u/s.36(1)(vii) - A.O. should have made further inquiries - AO dis-allowed Rs 61,12,431 out of total discount claimed of Rs 81,49,937 assessment order read as under Dis-allowance of discount allowed as discussed - assessee contended examination of issue in detail by AO Held that - It was the case of the CIT to further verify the order of the AO when he has already noted that the claim was the loss of the Revenue and shall not be allowed. No merit is found in contention of the Revenue insofar as the facts leading to claim of bad debt and allowance of discount were closely linked as observed by the AO cannot leave any room for doubt as sought to be assumed by CIT u/s.263 insofar as he has not given any direction to the AO which would lead to the finding that the order of the AO was erroneous coupled with the fact that it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Further, Commissioner while setting aside assessment u/s.263 should not give specific direction to the Assessing Officer to complete assessment in a particular manner. See Development Construction & Allied Services (India) P. Ltd v. ITO (2011 (3) TMI 850 - ITAT, MUMBAI ). Assessment u/s 263 is quashed Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Commissioner u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Allowability of certain expenses claimed by the assessee under "Discount allowed."
3. Treatment of debtors as discount allowed adjustment under Section 36(1)(vii).
4. Validity of order passed by the Commissioner u/s. 263.

Jurisdiction of Commissioner u/s. 263:
The appeal challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Cuttack assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contended that the Commissioner was not justified in restoring the assessment order to the Assessing Officer for re-examination, particularly regarding the allowability of a discount claimed by the assessee. The appellant argued that the Commissioner's actions were unwarranted as the Assessing Officer had already examined and allowed the discount as per Section 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act.

Allowability of Expenses under "Discount Allowed":
The appellant claimed certain expenses under "Discount allowed," which were challenged by the Commissioner under Section 263. The Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to verify the details of these expenditures and whether they could be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia). The Assessing Officer had disallowed a portion of the claimed discount, citing lack of documentary evidence supporting the claim. The Commissioner sought further verification, leading to the appeal.

Treatment of Debtors as Discount Allowed Adjustment:
The dispute centered on the treatment of debtors as discount allowed adjustment under Section 36(1)(vii). The Assessing Officer disallowed a substantial amount of the claimed discount, stating that the claimed debt write-off was unilateral and lacked supporting evidence. The Commissioner directed further scrutiny of this issue, leading to the appeal challenging the Commissioner's jurisdiction and decision.

Validity of Order Passed by the Commissioner u/s. 263:
The appellant argued that the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 was invalid as it was based on the premise of lack of inquiry by the Assessing Officer. The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer had applied due diligence and reached a reasonable conclusion, which should not be revisited merely on the grounds of the Commissioner's opinion. The appellant cited various legal precedents to support their argument against the Commissioner's order.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the impugned order of the Commissioner under Section 263. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's directions did not warrant setting aside the assessment, especially considering the Assessing Officer's detailed examination of the issues involved. The Tribunal found no merit in the Commissioner's actions and ruled in favor of the assessee.