2018 (7) TMI 584 - AT - Income Tax

Scrutiny assessment - whether the case was properly selected for scrutiny in accordance with the Scrutiny Guidelines prescribed by the CBDT vis- -vis by obtaining proper approval thereon? - Held that - It is not in dispute that the Additional CIT-Haldia is the Range Head of Haldia and accordingly the approval for manual selection of case for scrutiny given by ACIT-Haldia on 29.09.2012 is in order and consequentially the assessment framed thereon is not liable to be quashed as void ab initio. The financial year 2012-13 mentioned by the AO in the order sheet appears to be only typographical error as admittedly the papers were indeed moved by him through proper channel for obtaining approval for manual selection of case for scrutiny before the ld. Additional CIT -Haldia for the assessment year 2011-12 only, which is evident and apparent from the assessment records. Hence this error committed by the ld. AO in the order sheet is construed as typographical error and is hereby condoned. In view of the aforesaid observations the ground no.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed. Dsallowance made towards prior period expenses - Held that - We find that there is no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee in respect of this bill and not accounting the same in the earlier year. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Hindusthan Gum and Chemicals Ltd. vs. ITO 2007 (12) TMI 307 - ITAT KOLKATA had allowed the claim of prior period expenses in similar circumstances. Addition of administration charges - Held that - As gone though the statement raised by the concerned parties to the tune of ₹ 15,18,662/- towards administration charges we find that opening stock as on 01.04.2010 was ₹ 2,06,70,213/- and bills raised during the financial year 2010- 11 was ₹ 6,32,538/- and amount adjusted against the total bills was ₹ 15,18,662/-. The closing balance as on 31.03.2011 was accordingly arrived at ₹ 11,80,919/- which was shown as liability in the balance sheet of the assessee. Ledger account of the assessee as appearing in the books of Novel Engineering (i.e. sub-contractor) wherein it is evident that the assessee had indeed realized administration charges from the sub-contractor. So these facts conclusively prove that there is absolutely no case made out by the revenue for making an addition in the sum of ₹ 15,18,662/- on account of administrative charges. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Proper selection for scrutiny according to CBDT guidelines.
2. Disallowance of prior period expenses.
3. Addition made for administrative charges.

Issue 1: The appeal involved a challenge regarding the selection of the case for scrutiny as per CBDT guidelines. The assessee contended that the case was illegally manually selected for scrutiny without following the prescribed guidelines. The Assessing Officer (AO) had obtained approval from the Range Head of Haldia before selecting the case for scrutiny manually. The Central Action Plan guidelines allowed the AO in mofussil areas to select cases for scrutiny with the approval of the Range head. The Additional CIT-Haldia, being the Range Head of Haldia, had given approval for the manual selection of the case. The Tribunal found that the approval was in order, and the assessment was not liable to be quashed. The error in mentioning the financial year 2012-13 was considered a typographical error and was condoned. The Tribunal dismissed the ground raised by the assessee regarding the selection process.

Issue 2: The next ground involved the disallowance of prior period expenses by the AO, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee incurred certain expenses, and the bill was accounted for in the following financial year relevant to the assessment year. The Tribunal noted that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee and allowed the claim of prior period expenses based on precedents and decisions of the Delhi High Court. The Tribunal allowed the claim of prior period expenses in favor of the assessee.

Issue 3: The final issue was related to the addition made for administrative charges against the assessee. The AO added the amount adjusted by WBPDCL as income of the assessee, as the genuineness of the transaction with the sub-contractor was not conclusively proved. The Tribunal reviewed the ledger details and statements provided, concluding that there was no case made out by the revenue for the addition of administrative charges. The Tribunal allowed the ground raised by the assessee against the addition made for administrative charges.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, addressing the issues related to the selection process for scrutiny, disallowance of prior period expenses, and addition made for administrative charges. The Tribunal provided detailed reasoning and analysis for each issue, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee on the grounds of prior period expenses and administrative charges.