9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 385 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - disallowance of huge interest expenses - assessment of the assessee was reopened for limited scrutiny as Large increase of unsecured loans during the year and High interest expenses as compared to business turnover - HELD THAT - The copy of the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act is on the file in which the interest issue has been examined - The assessee upon the query of AO has also submitted the reply by virtue of letter dated 16.06.2017 and letter dated 30.05.2017 - The assessee also submitted the relevant record before the AO which was examined by AO as requested. Thereafter, the AO disallowed the interest to the tune of ₹ 7,92,27,335/- Once the AO has examined the issue and one possible view has already been taken, therefore, the assessment u/s. 263 of the Act is not liable to be reviewed in view of the decision of CIT Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. 2017 (8) TMI 538 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , Grasim Industries Ltd. 2010 (2) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 2011 (1) TMI 27 - DELHI HIGH COURT CIT Vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. 2006 (11) TMI 164 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . If it is assumed that the inquiry was not correct or conducted properly, therefore, the revisional power u/s. 263 of the Act is not liable to be invoked in view of the decision of MOIL Ltd. 2017 (5) TMI 258 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , CIT Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. 2010 (2) TMI 161 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers 2010 (8) TMI 745 - DELHI HIGH COURT . Taking into account of all the facts and circumstances, we set aside the order passed by PCIT in question and allowed the appeal of the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of invoking Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). 2. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's (AO) inquiry during the reassessment process. 3. Validity of the disallowance of interest expenses by the AO. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of invoking Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT): The appeal challenges the order dated 30.03.2021 by the PCIT, invoking Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the reassessment order passed under Section 143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The PCIT's revisionary powers under Section 263 were questioned on the grounds that the AO had conducted proper inquiries, applied due diligence, and considered all material facts during the assessment. 2. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's (AO) inquiry during the reassessment process: The assessee contended that the AO had conducted a thorough inquiry before passing the reassessment order. The AO had verified the genuineness of the loans and inter-corporate deposits (ICDs) by examining bank statements and other documents. The AO had also disallowed a significant portion of the interest expenses (?7,92,27,335 out of ?11,49,54,281) after verifying the records. The AO's detailed assessment included examining the large increase in unsecured loans and high-interest expenses compared to business turnover. The AO's findings were documented in the assessment order dated 30.06.2017. 3. Validity of the disallowance of interest expenses by the AO: The AO disallowed interest expenses amounting to ?7,92,27,335 on the grounds that the advances given to builders/developers/others were not for business purposes. The AO's decision was based on the provisions of Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, which allows deductions for interest on capital borrowed for business purposes. The AO concluded that since the advances were not for business purposes, the interest expenses could not be deducted. The assessee had submitted detailed responses and supporting documents during the assessment proceedings, which the AO had duly considered. Conclusion: The tribunal found that the AO had conducted a detailed inquiry and taken a possible view based on the facts and circumstances. Therefore, the invocation of Section 263 by the PCIT was deemed unwarranted. The tribunal referenced several judicial precedents, including CIT Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT, CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., and CIT Vs. Mepco Industries Ltd., to support its decision. The tribunal concluded that even if the inquiry was deemed inadequate, it did not justify invoking the revisionary powers under Section 263. Consequently, the order passed by the PCIT was set aside, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. Order: The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/01/2022.
|
