2023 (10) TMI 455 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay of 963 days before ITAT - Sufficiency of reasons for delay - HELD THAT - As there is no deliberate delay at the end of the assessee because the assessee was not going to gain anything from delaying this appeal. It is also pertinent to note that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT has observed that period of delay does not matter. It is the quality of the explanation. If some valid reason is there, then any period can be condoned. In this case delay was caused due non-receipt of intimations by the assessee on his registered e-mail id. Taking into consideration all these factors, we condone the delay of 963 days and admit this appeal for adjudication. Revision u/s 263 - unsecured loan taken - as per CIT reasons for which the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS has not been examined by the AO properly and most of the issues have not been addressed by the assessee - HELD THAT - A copy of the order sheet has been filed wherein also AO has firstly referred to the date of issuing notice u/s 142(1) - Thereafter, a reply has been filed by the assessee on 14/07/2017 and on the very same day assessee was asked to produce the books of accounts and other bills and vouchers. Then on 19/07/2017, the A/R of the assessee appeared and submitted the documents which were filed on record and also produced the books of accounts, bills and vouchers etc., which were test checked and returned back to the assessee and finally on 25/07/2017, case was completed as assessed. From the reply given by the assessee we notice that the complete detail of the unsecured loan taken from M/s. Aakansha Tradevin Pvt. Ltd. has been filed along with copy of the income tax return which clearly contradicts the finding of the ld. Pr. CIT stating that no evidence of filing the return of income of M/s. Aakansha Tradevin Pvt. Ltd., is available on record. Similarly, all the remaining issues including TDS mismatch has also been duly addressed. AO has raised specific queries to all of the issues referred in the show cause notice u/s 263 and they have been replied by the assessee in detail providing various documents in order to explain the transactions which were referred in the notice u/s 142(1). Even the unsecured loan taken from M/s. Aakansha Tradevin Pvt. Ltd., has been addressed to by the assessee by filing the relevant details and creditworthiness of the cash creditor and genuineness of the transactions and the nature and source of the said cash credit was duly explained to the Assessing Officer to his satisfaction. Thus, we find that the detailed enquiries were made by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings with regard to the various issues including those referred to u/s 263 and once the AO has applied his mind on the details called for by him and has taken a view permissible under the four corners of law, and ld. Pr. CIT has not carried out any independent enquiry to support the finding given in the impugned order, CIT ceases to exercise jurisdiction on the very same issues which have already passed through a complete enquiry during the assessment proceedings. Thus we uphold the contention of the assessee that the exercise of powers by the ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act, is bad in law. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay
2. Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
3. Examination of Unsecured Loans
4. Tax Credit Mismatch
5. Adequacy of Inquiry by Assessing Officer

Summary:

Condonation of Delay:
The appeal by the assessee was delayed by 963 days. The Tribunal noted that 707 days were due to the Covid-19 pandemic, as per the Hon'ble Apex Court's order dated 10/01/2022, and should be excluded. For the remaining 256 days, the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and orders on its registered email. The Tribunal, citing the liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause" from various judgments, including Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others and N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication.

Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 263:
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) invoked Section 263, claiming the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal examined whether the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted proper inquiries during the original assessment. It was found that the AO had indeed raised specific queries and received detailed responses from the assessee, including documents verifying the unsecured loan and tax credit mismatch.

Examination of Unsecured Loans:
The Pr. CIT questioned the unsecured loan of Rs. 1.70 Cr from M/s. Aakansha Tradevin Pvt. Ltd., alleging inadequate verification by the AO. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided necessary documents, including the loan creditor's income tax return, to the AO during the assessment, which were duly examined.

Tax Credit Mismatch:
The Pr. CIT noted discrepancies in tax credit claimed in the ITR and available in Form 26AS. The Tribunal found that the assessee had addressed these discrepancies in its response to the AO, explaining the minor differences due to timing issues in TDS deposits.

Adequacy of Inquiry by Assessing Officer:
The Tribunal emphasized that the AO had conducted detailed inquiries and had applied his mind to the issues raised. The Pr. CIT did not conduct any independent inquiry to support his findings. The Tribunal cited various judicial precedents, including Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT and Income Tax Officer vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd, to conclude that the Pr. CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was unjustified.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Section 263 of the Act and restored the original assessment order passed under Section 143(3) dated 25/07/2017, thereby allowing the assessee's appeal.