9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly no basis for the PCIT to invoke his power u/s 263 - records clearly show that the assessing officer had issued notices to the assessee on the very same issue considered their reply thereafter pointing out certain discrepancies issued show cause notice for which reply was submitted by the assessee and after a detailed enquiry the assessment has been completed. Thus, it is not a case of lack of enquiry or lack of proper enquiry. PCIT does not in as many words states that there was lack of enquiry or lack of proper enquiry and all that is said is that the assessing officer did not verify these aspects which is factually incorrect. Therefore, it is not a case where the PCIT could have invoked his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. Advertisement expenditure for employment charged by LINKED IN and bank charges therein - Advertisement expenses in June 2014 were admitted as liability and crystallized for payment in the year under consideration owing to the fact that the LINKED IN being non-resident had furnished the necessary documents in the such as TRC under Section 90(4) of the Act read with Rule 21 AB of the Rules and no PE certificate etc. only in the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 63 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed, when the order of Assessing Officer is erroneous and bases on non application of mind as well as against the provisions of law and when no such embargo has been put in the language of the section that when the Assessing Officer passed the order after conducting enquiry it cannot be reviewed and, the intention of the legislature was never such so as to render the revenue remedies against erroneous orders of the Assessing Officer or to make the revenue suffer a continuous wrong? (ii) Whether the provisions of the Section 263 of the said Act can be invoked in case where the Assessing Officer though makes thorough enquiry, ignores to appreciate that deductions claimed by the assessees are not in consonance with the provisions of law and it is found that the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind? (iii) Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in law in interpreting the provisions of Section 263 of the said Act and holding that the action of the learned PCIT in the present case is not justifiable and cannot be sustained under the facts and circumstances of the present case? 3. We have heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned standing counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all the facts and the figures, the assessee stated that it is evident the said sum of Rs. 1,34,45,166/- was added back in the computation of income which proves that the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice is factually erroneous and unsustainable in law. Further the assessee stated that the assessing officer had made due enquiries on the said issue and after being satisfied that the excess sum has been added back to the total income the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Further it was pointed out that in the notice dated 08.10.2018 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act specific details were called for on the said issue which was furnished by the assessee by the letters dated 20.11.2018 and 03.12.2018. It was further stated that the assessing officer examined the details of scientific research expenditure as claimed as deduction vis-a-vis the amount debited to profit and loss account including depreciation debited in books in relation to scientific research assets. Thereafter, another show cause notice was issued on 23.12.2018 requiring the assessee to explain as to why the excess deduction claimed under Section 35 (2AB) of the Act should not be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f to the assessee. Unless and until the order passed by the learned tribunal suffers from any perversity or ignores any vital fact in an appeal under Section 260A of the Act, we are not expected to interfere in such an order. 10. Nevertheless, since elaborate submissions were made by Mr. Sharma and Mr. Muraka we embarked upon the fact finding exercise though not required to be done. The respondent assessee filed a paper book containing all documents which was filed before the learned tribunal including the written submissions filed by the assessee. From the annexure, it is seen that under the column amount admissible under Section 35, in the sub column A1 the figure debited to the statement of profit and loss has been shown as Rs. 219,556,764/- in column A(ii)the amount admissible (net depreciation and asset written off) Rs. 206, 111,599/- has been mentioned. In column B(1) (i) the amount not debited to the statement of profit and loss-capital expenditure has been given as Rs. 218,424,479/- and in column b(2) the amount admissible is shown as Rs. 210, 494, 435/-. The details of the scientific research expenditure reported in Schedule 19 of the TAR has been explained as follows:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PCIT does not in as many words states that there was lack of enquiry or lack of proper enquiry and all that is said is that the assessing officer did not verify these aspects which is factually incorrect. Therefore, it is not a case where the PCIT could have invoked his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. 12. With regard to the second issue, the learned tribunal had noted the facts that the invoices issued by the LINKED IN towards advertisement expenses in June 2014 were admitted as liability and crystallized for payment in the year under consideration owing to the fact that the LINKED IN being non-resident had furnished the necessary documents in the such as TRC under Section 90(4) of the Act read with Rule 21 AB of the Rules and no PE certificate etc. only in the assessment year under consideration. Further the tribunal noted it is not the case where these expenses were charged as deduction in the preceding year more importantly, the tribunal noted that there is no revenue implication and no prejudice is caused to the revenue since the tax rate applicable to the assessee during the assessment year 2015-2016 to which invoices relates and the tax rates applicable for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
