2018 (9) TMI 1619 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - rejection of books of accounts and estimation of income - Held that - AO made due verifications of both the issues raised in the assessment order and there is no scope for inferring the adverse view. Since the income is estimated on gross turnover the AO is not permitted to make any other addition on account of trade creditors. No error caused prejudice to the interest of the revenue from the order of the AO. Therefore we hold that the Ld.Pr.CIT has invoked jurisdiction without any material to support his view. At best it can be called as inadequate enquiry but not lack of enquiry. Though lack of enquiry is a reason for taking up the case for revision inadequate enquiry does not give any scope for invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263. Therefore we cancel the order u/s 263 and restore the assessment order. - decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision u/s 263 by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax challenging the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) for the assessment year 2014-15.
2. Estimation of income at 5% by Assessing Officer based on rejection of books of accounts and verification issues.
3. Discrepancies in large expenses claimed in P&L account and increase in sundry creditors.
4. Applicability of estimation of income at 5% versus 7% in contract business.
5. Jurisdiction of Principal Commissioner to revise assessment order.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the revision order u/s 263 by the Principal Commissioner challenging the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) for the assessment year 2014-15. The Principal Commissioner found errors in the assessment related to large expenses and increase in sundry creditors, leading to the rejection of the assessment order for re-verification.

2. The Assessing Officer estimated the income at 5% on gross receipts after rejecting the books of accounts due to lack of verifiability. The Principal Commissioner observed discrepancies in the estimation and ordered a revision under section 263, citing errors in the estimation process and lack of proper explanations for the discrepancies.

3. The appellant argued that the expenses and trade creditors were duly accounted for in the books of accounts, audited under section 44AB, and supported by party-wise ledgers. The Assessing Officer's decision to estimate income at 5% was based on the precedents and the facts of the case, which the appellant contended were reasonable and in line with previous ITAT decisions.

4. The Tribunal noted that the estimation of income at 5% was not unreasonable given the circumstances of the case and the Assessing Officer's verification process. The Tribunal emphasized that the Principal Commissioner's view of inadequate verification was unfounded, as the Assessing Officer had conducted due diligence before estimating the income at 5%.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner had invoked jurisdiction without sufficient grounds and canceled the revision order u/s 263, restoring the original assessment order. The Tribunal concluded that while lack of enquiry could justify revision, inadequate enquiry did not warrant such action, leading to the allowance of the appellant's appeal.

This detailed analysis highlights the issues raised in the judgment, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning in reaching the decision to cancel the revision order and uphold the original assessment.