2013 (11) TMI 1451 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of assessment u/s 263 Held that - The Assessing Officer did not make proper enquiry which was expected from him considering the facts of the case - He has simply examined the cash deposit in the books of account without examining any aspect of manufacturing and trading account - The order of the learned CIT is upheld to the extent that the assessment order passed by AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Suppression of sales Held that - The CIT did not properly consider the assessee s written submission - No defects have been pointed out by the CIT in the regular books of account maintained by the assessee - Unless the defect is pointed out and books of account are rejected, there is no question of estimation of any production and sales The issue is restored for fresh decision.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The assessee filed the return with total income at nil and book profit under Section 115JB at Rs. 2,405. The CIT found the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest, thus directing an enhancement of income by Rs. 31,70,730 and levying a penalty of Rs. 11,71,646 under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee challenged these orders.

2. The counsel for the assessee argued that proper enquiries were made, detailed in the reply, and the CIT's working of the suppression of sales was based on presumption. The counsel contended that no defects were found in the regular books of account, and the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the trading results. The counsel requested quashing of the CIT's order and the penalty. Alternatively, if not quashed, the counsel sought a reexamination of all issues by the CIT.

3. The DR argued that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous due to lack of proper enquiry, citing the Gee Vee Enterprises case. The DR supported the CIT's order under Section 263 and suggested a reexamination by the CIT or Assessing Officer if necessary.

4. The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's enquiry inadequate, deeming his order erroneous. However, it disagreed with the CIT's working of the suppression of sales. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's decision that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue but set aside the enhancement. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, emphasizing examination of manufacturing and trading accounts without influence from the CIT's observations.

5. As the addition by the Assessing Officer was set aside, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was cancelled. The Assessing Officer was given the option to reinitiate penalty proceedings after the fresh assessment if necessary.

6. The outcome of the appeal was that ITA No.2079/Del/2011 was partly allowed, and ITA No.2502/Del/2012 was deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes. The decision was pronounced on 26th November, 2013.