2023 (7) TMI 121 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - unexplained expenses - HELD THAT - It is not a case where the matter relating to expenses has not been enquired into by the AO or the details as called for were not submitted by the assessee and not examined by the AO. AO issued a detailed questionnaire and in response, the assessee submitted its reply and supporting documentation as called for and taking the same into consideration, AO has passed the assessment order holding that the assessee did furnish hand-made bills and vouchers but at the same time, he is not convinced with the genuineness and allowability of these expenses and he had gone ahead and disallowed certain expenses as so claimed by the assessee. The same shows that the AO did examine the matter and applied his mind to the submissions made by the assessee and after analyzing the documentation so produced, he accepted the claim of the expenses subject to certain disallowances - findings of the ld PCIT that no details of expenses have been filed during the course of assessment proceedings is not borne out of record and is in face of specific findings recorded by the AO disallowing certain expenses. Unsecured loans raised during the year, the assessee in its submissions before the AO has submitted that it has taken unsecured loan from related persons/entities namely Piyush Ruhela, Ruhela Constructions Company and Satish Ruheja and in support, the copy of ledger account detailing the transactions during the year and necessary confirmation have also been filed during the course of assessment proceedings. Assessee has regular dealings with these related persons/entities and necessary confirmation is on record and therefore, the findings of the ld PCIT that no documents have been filed by the assessee is not borne out of records. As regarding, the advances given by the assessee during the year, the assessee during the assessment proceedings has submitted that no advances were given during the year and therefore, the findings of the ld PCIT is again not borne out of records. We agree with the alternate contention of the ld AR that the matter has been duly examined by the AO as he has raised necessary queries on these points vide notice u/s 142(1) dt. 24/10/2019 and the assessee had filed detailed reply which were examined and after proper examination and verification thereof, the assessment order was passed by the AO. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the findings of the ld PCIT that the details so called for by the AO were not filed and verified by the AO and therefore, the order so passed by the AO cannot be held as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We set-aside the order passed by the PCIT, the stay petition seeking stay on the set-aside proceedings consequential to order passed u/s 263 has become infructious - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the initiation of proceedings under section 263 was warranted.
2. Whether the setting aside of the assessment order was justified.
3. Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) considered the necessary details and provided an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

Issue 1: Initiation of Proceedings under Section 263
The assessee contended that the initiation of proceedings under section 263 was unwarranted as the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) did not consider the replies filed before the Assessing Officer (AO) during the assessment. The assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal noted that the Pr. CIT issued a show cause notice under section 263 highlighting issues such as a high ratio of refunds claimed and the need to examine expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss (P&L) Account. The Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT's concerns were addressed by the AO during the assessment proceedings, where the assessee had submitted detailed replies and documentation, which were examined by the AO.

Issue 2: Setting Aside of Assessment Order
The Pr. CIT set aside the assessment order for a denovo reassessment, citing the AO's failure to verify various details and conduct necessary enquiries. The Tribunal observed that the AO had issued a detailed questionnaire during the assessment proceedings, to which the assessee responded with the required details and supporting documentation. The AO had examined the financial statements, contract revenues, and expenses, and had made specific disallowances where necessary. The Tribunal concluded that the AO had duly examined the matter and applied his mind, and thus, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

Issue 3: Consideration of Details and Opportunity to be Heard
The assessee argued that the Pr. CIT ignored the details filed and did not provide an opportunity to be heard on the new grounds raised in the order under section 263. The Tribunal acknowledged the principle of natural justice, emphasizing that the assessee should be allowed an opportunity to be heard before any adverse view is taken. The Tribunal found that the issues raised in the Pr. CIT's order were connected to the initial show-cause notice and that the assessee had been provided an opportunity to respond. However, the Tribunal also noted that the AO had already examined these issues during the assessment proceedings, and the Pr. CIT's findings were not supported by the record.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Pr. CIT under section 263, concluding that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. Consequently, the stay petition seeking to stay the set-aside proceedings became infructuous. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the stay petition was dismissed.