9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 539 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - As per CIT, AO has failed to make an enquiry in respect of difference between receipt of brokerage and commission as per TDS certificates deducted u/s 194H and the income declared by the assesse in the books of accounts - HELD THAT - Case of the assessee finds support to the decision referred by the Ld. A.R namely PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (9) TMI 529 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein held that the Ld. PCIT has to determine the excess depreciation before setting aside the order of AO but since the Ld. PCIT has not undertaken any enquiry to this effect and therefore the order of Ld. PCIT was not sustainable. Similarly in the present case the Ld. PCIT has not undertaken any enquiry despite the assessee submitting all the necessary details/evidences to this effect and there was no mistake in the order as the so called difference was correctly assessed to tax in AY 2015-16, AY 2017-18 and of Rs. 1,14,500/- shown on account of wrong deduction by Electrosteel Steel Ltd. reimbursement of expenses was appearing in Form 26AS in AY 2017-18. In view of these facts, we are inclined to quash the revisionary proceedings as well the order passed u/s 263 of the Act.Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues:
Invalid exercise of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by Ld. PCIT. Analysis: The appeal was against the order of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna-1 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18. The only issue raised was regarding the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by the Ld. PCIT, challenging the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act. The assessment was scrutinized for a high ratio of TDS refund and large advance tax refund. The Ld. PCIT found a discrepancy between brokerage/commission income as per TDS certificates and the income declared by the assessee. A show cause notice was issued, and the assessee provided detailed reconciliation and evidence to explain the difference, which was not accepted by the Ld. PCIT. The Ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order, directing a fresh assessment with necessary inquiry. The assessee contended that the Ld. PCIT failed to appreciate the furnished facts and evidence, asserting that the assessment was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. The assessee argued that the income in question had been correctly assessed in previous years and provided supporting documents. The Ld. PCIT's order was challenged for not considering the provided evidence and for directing a fresh assessment without valid grounds. The assessee emphasized that the conditions for invoking section 263 were not met, citing relevant case law to support their position. After hearing both sides and examining the evidence, the tribunal found that the assessment was done correctly by the AO, and there was no discrepancy of Rs. 36,23,515 as alleged by the Ld. PCIT. The tribunal noted that the income in question had been offered for tax in previous years, and the remaining difference was due to a TDS error. Citing the Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. case, the tribunal emphasized the necessity of both conditions being satisfied before invoking section 263. The tribunal also referenced a relevant case where the PCIT's order was deemed unsustainable due to lack of proper inquiry. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the revisionary proceedings and the order under section 263. In conclusion, the tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, finding that the assessment was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, and the conditions for invoking section 263 were not met. The tribunal emphasized the importance of proper inquiry and evidence consideration before setting aside assessment orders under section 263.
|
