9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred to as ' PCIT'], Kolkata-1, which is arising out of the assessment order dt. 19-11-2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act by the ACIT,Cir-3(1), Kolkata. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, the Ld. Pr. CIT is wholly unjustified in setting aside the order so passed by AO u/s 143(3) dt. 19.11.2019 and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the Ld. Pr. CIT's action in setting aside the impugned order is bad and illegal and as such the order so passed by Ld. Pr. CIT is liable to be quashed / cancelled set aside and it may be held accordingly. 2. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, the order so passed by Ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 1,05,24,671/- being the provision for doubtful debts (as alleged by Ld. Pr. CIT) was "bad debt written off in books of account" and as such the impugned amount was allowable within the meaning of sec. 36(1)(vi) read with sec. 36(1)(vii) and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the AO has rightly allowed the said sum and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the Ld. Pr. CIT's action in such respect in setting aside the order u1s 143(3) is bad in law and it may be held accordingly. 8. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, the Ld. Pr. CIT erred both on facts and in law and setting aside the issue of addition of Rs. 9,16,893/- (being the Employees Contribution to PF/ESI) without appreciating the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot examined the provision for doubtful debts amounting to Rs. 1,05,24,671/-, delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF of Rs. 9,16,893/-, which deserves to be disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act and the air conditioner expenses of Rs. 1,54,66,615/-, which are capital in nature. Based on this observation, the ld. PCIT issued show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act dt. 8-9-2021 mentioning the above stated three issues. 5. During the course of revisionary proceedings carried out u/s. 263 of the Act by the ld.PCIT, Ld. A/R of the assessee stated that ld. AO duly examined all the three issues mentioned/refered in the said show cause notice and specific reply has been submitted. However, the ld. PCIT was not satisfied and set aside the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld. PCIT and opposed the contentions of Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that the assessee has raised nine grounds of appeal before us, but the sole grievance is that the ld. PCIT erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and erred in setting aside the assessment order dt. 19-11-2019 framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Section 263 of the Act has a direct bearing on the issue. Sub-section (1) of this section contemplates that ld. PPCIT/PCIT/CIT may call for and examine the records of any proceeding under the Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the ld.AO is errone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther, in response to notice dt. 04-12-2019 the assessee gave another reply on 12/12/19 ( pages 227-232 of the P.B) about details of bad debts written off of Rs.1,05,24,671/-. 13. From going through the questionnaire details of other expenses appearing in the audited P & L account and various replies filed by the assessee, we find that the ld. AO has specifically carried out the enquiry regarding provisions for doubtful debts of Rs. 1,05,24,671/- and air conditioner expenses of Rs.1,54,66,615/- and specific reply has been given by the assessee. In the audited P & L account the assessee has also shown bad debts written off. The ld. PCIT has mentioned provisions for doubtful debts. The assessee during the regular course of business has clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideration as it has been deposited before the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act and do not call for disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act. Ld. PCIT ought to have appreciated the settled legal judicial precedence should not have restore the said issue of PF/ESI contribution issues to ld. AO for further examination when all the facts were available on record. Provisions of section 263 of the Act itself provides that ld. PCIT ought to make or cause to make such enquiry as he deems necessary before passing the impugned order. Therefore, in our considered view, ld. PCIT erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act on this issue also. 15. We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
