2013 (4) TMI 454 - HC - Income Tax

Revision U/s 263 - The amount withdrawn from the bank claimed as refund to its client was found to be bogus - Tribunal held that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax was not proper - Held that - Tribunal held that though it is an undisputed fact that amounts were withdrawn from bank, the Respondent-Assessee had claimed the withdrawal were for refund to its clients, yet in fact, these amounts withdrawn from the bank were not refunded to its clients. However, as these refunds were not claimed as an expenditure and/or reduced from its income to arrive at the taxable profits, addition of the same is not justified. As the decision of the Tribunal is on a finding of fact, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law for the subject Assessments Year 2000-01 and 2001-02 - Both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues:
- Justification of setting aside order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax for Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02.

Analysis:
1. The Respondent-Assessee underwent a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued an order under Section 143(3) r/w Section 153A of the Act on December 31, 2007. During the assessment, it was discovered that the amount withdrawn from the bank, claimed as a refund to clients, was deemed bogus. The Assessing Officer did not add this amount to the income as it was not claimed as expenditure during income determination for tax purposes.

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, utilizing powers under Section 263 of the Act, aimed to revise the assessment order dated December 31, 2007, based on the assertion that the refunds claimed were bogus as the withdrawn amounts were not refunded to customers as per statements made during the search.

3. Upon appeal, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 was improper. The Tribunal reasoned that the Assessing Officer's perspective, where the bogus refund was not claimed as expenditure while computing income, was a plausible view. Therefore, there was no basis for adding the amount. Additionally, the Tribunal found that although the bank withdrawals were intended for client refunds, they were not actually refunded. However, since these refunds were not treated as expenditure or deducted from income for tax purposes, the addition of the amounts was deemed unjustified.

4. Notably, the Tribunal highlighted that for other assessment years, the Respondent-Assessee had claimed similar bogus refunds as expenditure, which were subsequently added to their income by the Revenue for taxation. However, for the subject assessment years (2000-01 and 2001-02), the Tribunal found no grounds to add the amounts claimed as refunds.

5. Given the factual nature of the Tribunal's decision, the High Court declined to entertain the proposed question of law for the subject Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed without costs.