9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1023X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , vide impugned order, has rightly declined to interfere/rectify/revise with any of the findings mentioned in the order dated 28.03.2021 passed under section 263 of the Act. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order was not passed ex-parte as mentioned in one of the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, in view of the above, grounds of appeal, numbered 1 to 4 are dismissed herewith. Disallow that expenditure or work out income relatable to such expenditure, on accrual basis, which had not been claimed in the Profit Loss account - We are of the considered opinion that the PCIT should have held one of the Tables mentioned as authentic as there is no dispute on aggregate expenditure mentioned in these tables and claimed in the Profit Loss account. In case of dispute about the apportionment of expenses at micro levels (amongst projects), the same would have been sorted out with the help of original bills vouchers of expenditure. Therefore, in the interest of justice and considering all the afore-stated observations finding in the order [ 2022 (9) TMI 1596 - ITAT DELHI] we are of the considered opinion that the appellant/assessee deserves reasonable opportunity of being h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee, which is apparent on the record and even duly explained before ld. PCIT. 6. That, ld. PCIT erred in calculating a deficit of Rs. 94,52,860/- on the project of Royal home Town which is disallowed though assessee himself has declared surplus of Rs. 29,32,028/-. As such after considering correct figure there is no loss to revenue. 2.1 The core issue for consideration before us is that whether the assessment order was erroneous prejudicial to revenue warranting assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT over the case under section 263 of the Act. 3. The relevant and limited facts for deciding this appeal, in brief, are that the appellant/assessee, a civil contractor, filed its Income Tax Return (In short, the ITR ) on 12.05.2017 declaring income of Rs. 12,73,060/-. The case was picked up for scrutiny and the consequential assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act at income of Rs. 15,05,69,690/- by the Assessing Officer [In short, the AO ]. The PCIT, on examination of the assessment record of the relevant year, noticed that the appellant/assessee, who worked on 4 projects; namely, Royal Home, Park Escape, Arien Metal, Ellora Infratech had debited/claimed expenses relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded the matter back to the PCIT for revision/rectification of the computational mistake taken place in the said order dated 22.09.2022. In pursuance of the ITAT order dated 22.09.2022, the PCIT had given sufficient opportunities of being heard to the appellant/assessee as detailed in para 5 and 6 of the impugned order but in vain. Since the appellant/assessee did not bring any material on the record during the set-aside proceedings to contradict the finding of the PCIT and to demonstrate any computational error in the original order passed under section 263 of the Act, therefore, the PCIT, vide impugned order, declined to interfere/rectify/revise with any of the findings mentioned in the order dated 28.03.2021 passed under section 263 of the Act. 5. The Ld. Counsel arguments revolved around his contention that the appellant/assessee, mistakenly, submitted tabular details (Table-1) as mentioned in the assessment order wherein it showed (i) material cost of Rs. 2,88,30,170/- and (ii) labour charges of Rs. 48,86,855/- relating to three projects (other than Ellora Infratech) instead of four projects. The correct details of expenses under (i) material cost and (ii) labour charges heads ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l contended that if the figures of (i) material cost of Rs. 1,06,79,248/- and (ii) labour charges of Rs. 30,59,484/- of Royal Home in the Table-2 above are replaced by the corresponding figure of Table-1 by Rs. 2,30,64,136/- and Rs. 39,09,484/-, the aggregate expenses under the heads (i) material cost and (ii) labour charges come to Rs. 4,12,15,058/- and Rs. 57,36,855/- as against the claimed expenses of Rs. 2,88,30,170/- and Rs. 48,86,855/- respectively in the Profit Loss account. 5.2 The Ld. Counsel argued that the PCIT was not consistent in his approach as it had taken some suitable figures from the Table-1 and some from the Table-2. He contended that if the PCIT should have taken figures from one table, then such anomaly should have not arisen. The PCIT, by passing the original order under section 263 of the Act, had erred in quantifying that income or disallow those expenses which had not been credited or debited in the Profit Loss account. 4.3 On legality of the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, the Ld. Counsel, besides above details, placed reliance on various judicial pronouncements and contended that the impugned order is ab-initio void. 5. The Ld. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard both the parties at length and perused the material available in the case record. 7. We have limited issue to decide here that whether the PCIT, vide impugned order, did justice in pursuance of the Tribunal s order, dated 22.09.2022, in ITA No. 643/Del/2021. It is evident from the impugned order that the PCIT, who was required to do needful after rectifying the computational error pointed out in the above-mentioned Tribunal s order, has given sufficient opportunities of being heard to the appellant/assessee as detailed in para 5 and 6 of the impugned order but the same were not availed by the appellant/assessee. The PCIT was not required to review the original order dated 28.03.2021 but to act as per the Tribunal s order (supra). Since the appellant/assessee did not bring any material on the record during the set-aside proceedings to contradict the finding of the PCIT and to demonstrate any computational error in the original order passed under section 263 of the Act, therefore, it is held that the PCIT, vide impugned order, has rightly declined to interfere/rectify/revise with any of the findings mentioned in the order dated 28.03.2021 passed under section 263 of the Act. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... work out to Rs. 4,12,15,058/- and Rs. 57,36,855/- respectively, which is Rs. 1,32,34,888/- more than the aggregate expenditure claimed by the appellant/assessee. 10. We are of the considered opinion that the PCIT should have held one of the Tables mentioned above in para 4 as authentic as there is no dispute on aggregate expenditure mentioned in these tables and claimed in the Profit Loss account. In case of dispute about the apportionment of expenses at micro levels (amongst projects), the same would have been sorted out with the help of original bills vouchers of expenditure. Therefore, in the interest of justice and considering all the afore-stated observations finding in the order dated 22.09.2022 in ITA No. 643/Del/2021, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant/assessee deserves reasonable opportunity of being heard to make shortcomings. In view thereof, without offering any comment on merit of the case we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remit the issue of the computational mistake/error referred in the order dated 22.09.2022 in ITA No. 643/Del/2021 back to the file of the PCIT to decide the case afresh. The appellant/assessee should ensure complian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
