9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, the order of Pr.CIT, in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 could not be sustained and the same, in our opinion, was bereft of any merits. Therefore, we quash the same and restore the quantum assessment order of Ld. AO. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 3102/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 12-9-2018 - Shri Saktijit Dey, JM And Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, AM Assessee by : Devendra Jain, Ld. AR Revenue by : B. Srinivasan, Ld. CIT DR ORDER Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2014-15 contest the invocation of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-11 [Pr.CIT], Mumbai on 19/03/2018 by raising the following grounds of appeal:- 1. In the facts circumstances of the case, submissions made before the A.O. as well as submissions made before the Pr. CIT, provisions of law the case law on the subject, the Learned Pr. CIT-11, Mumbai, erred in issuing Notice u/s 263 passing the revision order u/s 263. Therefore, it is prayed to declare that the Notice issued u/s 263 was null void the consequent order passed u/s 263 is also null void. 2. The learned P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. The details of the expenses on which TDS not made are as under: Sr.No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 Interest other than Interest on securities 23,03,308/- 2 Commission or Brokerage 6,71,000/- 3 Rent 4,05,000/- 4 Payment to contractor 3,74,53,255/- 5 Fees paid for professional 23,19,803/- 6 Payment to contractors 6,34,64,718/- 7 Commission or Brokerage 6,71,000/- Total 10,72,88,084/- Further, the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has not disallowed the above u/s 40(a)(ia) even though no TDS has been deducted on the same as was noticed in Form 3CD, which resulted in under assessment. Also, it is pertinent that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings. The same has been controverted by Ld. Departmental Representative [CIT, DR], Shri B.Srinivasan by submitting that the Tax Audit Report filed by the assessee, prima facie, reveal non compliance of TDS provisions and since the same was not examined by Ld. AO during assessment proceedings, invocation of jurisdiction was perfectly justified since it was the only recourse available to the revenue under the circumstances. 5. We have carefully heard the rival contentions, perused relevant material on record including judicial pronouncements relied upon by respective representatives. So far as the Assessment order u/s 143(3) is concerned, we find that the same is silent regarding observations made by Ld. Pr.CIT. Another undisputed fact is that the above mentioned data as noted by Ld. Pr.CIT is duly reported in the Tax Audit Report of the assessee which as per Ld. AR, is erroneous yet no effort, till date, has been made by the assessee to rectify the same or demonstrate with conclusive evidence that the same was erroneous or incorrect, in any manner. 6.1 As evident from documents on record, we find that the assessee, during assessment proceedings, vide notice u/s 142(1) dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) has been made in the quantum assessment order. 6.3 Upon perusal of above factual matrix, we find that it is not a case of lack of inquiry or inadequate inquiry which warrants exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by higher authorities. The Ld. AO, with due application of mind, examined the claim of the assessee in this regard and took a conscious decision not to make any disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). Nothing on record suggest that the view of the Ld. AO was erroneous, in any manner. This being the case, the order of Ld. Pr.CIT, in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 could not be sustained and the same, in our opinion, was bereft of any merits. Therefore, we quash the same and restore the quantum assessment order of Ld. AO. The above conclusion reached upon by us is further fortified by the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court rendered in Moil Ltd. Vs. CIT [81 Taxmann.com 420] wherein Hon ble court has held as under:- 5. On a perusal of the orders passed by the Authorities, it appears that before the assessment order was passed, a notice was served on the assessee under Section 142 (1) of the Act and 20 queries pertaining to different heads were made therein. The ninth query ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Corporate Social Responsibility claim is one of them. It is apparent from the notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act that a specific query in regard to the claim pertaining to the Corporate Social Responsibility was made and a detailed note after giving bifurcation of the expenses under different heads was sought. We have perused the response in respect of this query which is exhaustive. We find that the assessee has given the details, as are sought under query no.9 in the notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act. If that is so, the judgments, reported in Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (supra) and Nirav Modi (supra) and on which the learned Counsel for the assessee has placed great reliance would come into play. It is held in the judgments referred to herein above by relying on the judgment in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. (supra) that if a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the query is responded to by the assessee, the mere fact that the query is not dealt with in the assessment order would not lead to a conclusion that no mind has been applied to it. In the case of Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (supra) this Court found that from the nature of the expenditure a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
