2020 (12) TMI 349 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s.263 - provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s. 36(1)(viia) - PCIT had held that the assessee had claimed excess bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) without reducing the opening credit balance (that is the amount of deduction allowed u/s.36(1)(viia) in the A.Y.2014-15) and the same was wrongly allowed by the Assessing Officer - HELD THAT - As decided in own case 2020 (10) TMI 1011 - ITAT MUMBAI assessee has filed detailed submissions before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has considered the submissions even though he has not discussed it in his order under Section 143(3) of the Act. The material submitted before us clearly indicate that assessee has made elaborate submissions on this issue and the Assessing Officer has satisfied himself that assessee is eligible to claim deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Act and, therefore, in our considered view, ld. PCIT cannot form another view on the same issue in which the Assessing Officer has already satisfied himself and passed an order which clearly indicates that the Assessing Officer has verified and investigated the matter in detail. Therefore, even in this issue, the provisions of Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Provision for bad and doubtful debts under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Alleged double deduction claims by the assessee.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of PCIT invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263:

The core issue in this appeal was whether the PCIT was justified in invoking his revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that the PCIT aimed to impose another view on the same subject matter that had already been examined by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO had issued a questionnaire to the assessee, who provided detailed notes and justifications regarding the deductions claimed under Section 36(1)(viia). After examining these details, the AO allowed the deductions and completed the assessment. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's attempt to revise the AO's decision was not justified, as the AO had already scrutinized and accepted the assessee's claims based on the prevailing legal position.

2. Provision for bad and doubtful debts under Section 36(1)(viia):

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had claimed a deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) for bad and doubtful debts, which was thoroughly examined by the AO during the assessment proceedings. The AO had raised specific queries about the provision for bad debts and rural advances, and the assessee had provided detailed responses and calculations. The PCIT, however, argued that the assessee's computations were incorrect and resulted in double deductions. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's re-computation was not warranted, as the AO had already considered the relevant details and allowed the deductions in accordance with the law.

3. Alleged double deduction claims by the assessee:

The PCIT contended that the assessee's claims resulted in double deductions under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia). He provided a reworked computation to demonstrate the alleged double deduction. However, the Tribunal referred to its previous decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2014-15, where it had held that the PCIT's invocation of revisionary jurisdiction on similar grounds was incorrect. The Tribunal reiterated that the AO had examined the details and allowed the deductions after satisfying himself with the assessee's justifications. The Tribunal emphasized that merely because the PCIT had a different opinion, it could not render the AO's order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order under Section 263, holding that he had erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, emphasizing that the AO had already scrutinized and accepted the deductions claimed by the assessee based on detailed justifications and prevailing legal provisions. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with its earlier ruling in the assessee's case for the previous assessment year, reinforcing that the PCIT's attempt to revise the AO's order was not justified.