9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in observing that the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment without proper verification and investigation and holding that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5. That the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred, in ignoring the submissions/ documentary evidence submitted by the assessee during the assessment and revisionary proceedings, and recording factually incorrect finding while holding that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6. That the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred, in making observation that the payable amount of taxi hire charges payable to Mishra Tour & Travels is Rs. 2.01 Crores whereas as per the audited books of account of the appellant company, the amount payable to the said party as on 31/3/2015 was Rs. 20,10,580/- only; and therefore, the very basis of initiating revision proceedings u/s 263 is invalid. 7. That the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in not appreciating that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has filed all the details in respect of the issues raised by the Assessing Officer much before the completion of assessment proceedings and the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s 143(3) of the Act. It is submitted that in view of above, for exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 following twin conditions must be met: i. Erroneous order - The order should be erroneous. Thus, if any order is not erroneous it could not be subject to revision w/s 263. ii. Prejudicial to the revenue's interests- The order should be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In this regard, it is submitted that the Principal Commissioner of Income tax has erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 as the assessment was framed and accepted by the Ld.AO after having examined the documents furnished. The assessee had filed the relevant documents based on which the AO had accepted and framed the order. A list of documents filed before Ld.AO is tabulated as under: Documents submitted PB (II) Page Copy of Audit Report along with Balance Sheet and P/L for AY 2015-16 1-34 Copy of reply filed on 05.09.2017 and 20.09.2017, submitting the copy of assessment order for AY 2014-15, details of expenses of more than Rs. 5 Lacs incurred including the taxi hire charges, RTO expenses, transport tax and other expenses etc. 41-86 Copy of reply filed on 23.10.2017 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e charges of 5.29 crore. As can be seen from Page 12 of the PB 1. The figure was Rs. 23,58, 157/- and not 2.01 crore as misread by Ld. PCIT. Further, Ld. PCIT did not check and confirm the same from the response to his SCN and persisted with the same incorrect view till the end which primarily was the reason for passing of the impugned order. Ld. PCIT also erred in holding that the AO has failed to verify about the expenses incurred on account of hiring of taxis to the tune of Rs. 5.29 crores and to examine the genuineness of these expenses as the AO did verify the same by calling for the details. AO was satisfied with the details submitted by the assessee. However, Ld. PCIT seemed dissatisfied that the details pertained to few parties amounting to Rs. l.6 crore. In this regard it is submitted that it is not uncommon in the assessment proceedings to call for the details on a sample basis. Thus, AO had not committed any error by getting satisfied with the quality of the accounts by examining the taxi hire charges paid to few major parties in all totalling to Rs. 1.69 crore out of Rs. 5.29 Further the Ld. PCIT has again erred in holding that the AO failed to verify if TDS has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 has held that there is a distinction between "lack of enquiry" and "inadequate enquiry". If there was any enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself given occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders u/s 263 of the Act. It is submitted that only in the case of lack of enquiry i.e., where no enquiry whatsoever has been made by during the time of assessment proceeding, the order u/s 263 of the Act can be passed and if it is a case of "inadequate inquiry" i.e., inquiry has been made but that is not to the satisfaction of the Ld. PCIT, the same will not give rise to a situation on the basis of which the order u/s 263 can be passed by the Ld. PCIT. It is submitted that case of instant assessee falls under second situation wherein proper and adequate enquiry during the time of assessment was made by the assessing officer and therefore Ld. PCIT is not justified in revising the order of Ld. AO u/s 263 of the Act. AO has passed the assessment order after diligently carrying out the assessment and there is no reason to assail the same on the pretext of non-application of mind. It is submitted that in order to exercise the power u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld bestow a revisional power upon the Commissioner. However; the said Clause or any other condition laid down in Explanation 2 does not warrant recording of the said enquiry or verification in its entirety in the assessment order: 21. Admittedly, in the instant case, the questionnaire dated 02.11.2004, which has been annexed and brought on record in the present appeal, would manifest that the AO had asked for the allowability of the claims with respect to the issues in question. Consequently, the respondent-assessee duly furnished explanations thereof vide replies dated 09.12.2004, 20.12.2004 and 06.01.2005. Thus, it is not a case where no enquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the AO with respect to the claims under consideration. However, this leads us to an ancillary question-whether the mandate of law for invoking the powers under Section 263 of the Act includes the cases where either an adequate enquiry has not been made and the same has not been recorded in the order of assessment or the said authority is circumscribed to only consider the cases where no enquiry has been conducted at all. 22. Reliance can be placed on the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he has different opinion in the matter. Furthermore, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 has held that there is a distinction between "lack of enquiry" and "inadequate enquiry". If there was any enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself given occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders u/s. 263 of the Act. Examining the present case on the touchstone of the aforesaid cases laws, we find that AO has made due enquiries and replies in this regard were given by the assessee which has been duly reflected in the documents attached in the Paper Books. Furthermore, we note that the Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act referred by the Pr. CIT has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2015, which is applicable from the assessment year 2016-17 only. However, the present assessment year being the assessment year 2015-16, hence, applicability of Explanation 2 to Section 263 is not applicable to the present case. The amendment thus cannot empower the PCIT to order for further enquiry as the period is prior to the amendment. So the details were enquired by the AO and duly examined by him, hence, it cannot be said that the order of the AO is erroneous and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
