2022 (12) TMI 786 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - disallowances u/s 14A - interest bearing borrowed funds have been utilized during the year to fund the non-current investments as evident from the steep increase in the finance cost during the year which doesn't stand justified with reference to revenue from operations and it is accordingly held that the finance cost is incurred during the year to sustain its non-current investments which call for disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act and which the AO has failed to enquire during the course of assessment proceedings - HELD THAT - As submitted that basis the said submission that there are no fresh investments made during the year and consequentially, no interest bearing funds were utilized for making any such investment, no disallowance was made by the AO towards the interest expenditure incurred during the year. We find force in the arguments of the AR and are of the considered view that the matter has been adequately examined by the AO regarding fresh investments made during the year and after taking into consideration the factual position and submissions of the assessee including the comparative position of investments at the beginning and at the end of year which shows that there are no fresh investments made during the year, the AO has not made any disallowance towards interest expenditure u/s. 14A - we find that it is not the case of the ld. PCIT that the investments made in the earlier years were made out of interest bearing funds and interest cost thereof continue to be claimed during the year and which has escaped attention of the AO. Nothing has been brought on record to this effect either in the impugned order or during the course of hearing before us including any disallowances made u/s 14A in the earlier years. We find that there are justifiable basis to invoke the provisions of section 263 as the order passed by the AO cannot be held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and the order so passed by the ld. PCIT is hereby set-aside and that of the AO is sustained.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Adequacy of enquiry and disallowance under Section 14A.
3. Application of the Supreme Court decision in South Bank Limited.
4. Quantum of investment vis-Ã -vis interest-free funds.
5. Completeness and correctness of financial statements.
6. Scope of limited scrutiny and CBDT directions.
7. Applicability of case laws cited by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT).
8. Application of Explanation 2 to Section 263.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee contended that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 and setting aside the assessment framed under Section 143(3). The Tribunal found that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction was not justified as the Assessing Officer (AO) had already examined the relevant issues during the assessment proceedings.

2. Adequacy of Enquiry and Disallowance under Section 14A:
The PCIT argued that the AO failed to invoke Section 14A and make proper verification, leading to a prejudicial and erroneous assessment. The Tribunal noted that the AO had issued specific queries regarding investments and expenses for earning exempt income, and the assessee had responded adequately. The AO's acceptance of the assessee's submissions was based on a thorough examination, thus no further disallowance under Section 14A was warranted.

3. Application of the Supreme Court Decision in South Bank Limited:
The assessee claimed that the PCIT's reliance on the Supreme Court decision in South Bank Limited was factually incorrect. The Tribunal did not find any specific findings by the PCIT on this matter, indicating that the decision was not directly applicable to the assessee's case.

4. Quantum of Investment vis-Ã -vis Interest-Free Funds:
The PCIT's finding that the assessee's investment exceeded its interest-free funds was contested. The Tribunal found that there were no fresh investments made during the year under consideration, and the AO had verified this during the assessment proceedings. Thus, the PCIT's conclusion was not supported by the facts.

5. Completeness and Correctness of Financial Statements:
The PCIT noted several discrepancies in the financial statements, including missing details and incorrect calculations. The Tribunal found these observations to be factually incorrect, as the complete financial statements and audit reports were available on the Income Tax Department's e-filing portal. The AO had not rejected the books of accounts, indicating their correctness.

6. Scope of Limited Scrutiny and CBDT Directions:
The PCIT argued that the AO failed to convert the case from limited to complete scrutiny to examine issues like cash deposits during demonetization and share premium. The Tribunal held that the PCIT's findings were beyond the scope of limited scrutiny and against CBDT directions, thus the AO's actions were justified.

7. Applicability of Case Laws Cited by the PCIT:
The PCIT cited various case laws to support his findings. The Tribunal did not find these case laws directly applicable to the facts of the assessee's case, thereby not supporting the PCIT's conclusions.

8. Application of Explanation 2 to Section 263:
The PCIT applied Explanation 2 to Section 263, stating that the AO did not make proper enquiry. The Tribunal found that the AO had duly examined the relevant issues, and the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Thus, the application of Explanation 2 was not justified.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the AO had adequately examined the relevant issues, and the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was set aside, and the original assessment order was sustained.

← Previous Next →