2016 (9) TMI 71 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds Assessing Officer's decision on tax appeal, quashes Commissioner's revision proceedings.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, RAJKOT Versus MARUTI GINNING AND PRESSING INDS

The Tribunal dismissed the tax appeal, upholding the Assessing Officer's inquiries and the genuineness of the assessee's claims regarding cash payments ... Revision u/s 263 - addition u/s 40A(3) - AO limited the disallowance only to 20% of expenditure - CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the genuineness of the claim of purchases of URD Kapas by making necessary investigation and verification in respect of agricultural land holding, crop taken and actual purchases by the assessee from the concerned traders and then pass a fresh order of assessment - Held that:- As noted, the Assessing Officer in the process of framing assessment had made inquiries with the assessee regarding cash payments in excess of ₹ 20,000/-. The assessee pointed out that such payments were for purchase of cotton and the payments were made to the producers. This being an agricultural products such payments would be outside the purview of Section 40A(3) of the Act. The Commissioner, however, found that there were certain discrepancies in the records produced. We notice that the assessee had produced list of hundreds of farmers, producers to whom such payments were made and documents concerning their lands were also produced. Merely because there were some minor discrepancies in some of them would not be sufficient to conclude that the Assessing Officer did not make a proper inquiry. The revisional powers could not have been exercised for making better or further inquiry. - Decided against revenue Issues:1. Exercise of revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.2. Validity of assessment order based on cash payments exceeding &8377; 20,000 for purchase of agricultural produce.3. Discrepancies in records produced by the assessee regarding cash payments.4. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to set aside the order of assessment.Analysis:1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the exercise of revisional powers by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner set aside the order of assessment by the Assessing Officer, directing further investigation and verification of the genuineness of the claim of purchases of agricultural produce. The Tribunal later quashed the revision proceedings initiated by the Commissioner, emphasizing the need for substantial grounds to exercise revisional powers.2. The validity of the assessment order was questioned due to cash payments exceeding &8377; 20,000 for the purchase of cotton, invoking Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that such payments were made to farmers and producers of agricultural produce, falling outside the purview of Section 40A(3). The Assessing Officer limited the disallowance to 20% of the expenditure where no supporting documents were provided.3. Discrepancies in the records produced by the assessee regarding cash payments were highlighted by the Commissioner as the basis for setting aside the assessment order. Despite minor discrepancies, the Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had made inquiries and formed an opinion regarding the genuineness of the purchases. The Tribunal emphasized that revisional powers should not be exercised merely for the purpose of making better or further inquiries.4. The jurisdiction of the Commissioner to set aside the order of assessment was a crucial aspect of the case. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had conducted inquiries and the assessee had provided relevant details. The Tribunal held that the revision proceedings were unsustainable on merits, emphasizing the importance of substantial grounds and proper inquiry before invoking revisional powers.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the tax appeal, affirming the Assessing Officer's inquiries and the genuineness of the assessee's claims regarding cash payments for agricultural produce, ultimately quashing the revision proceedings initiated by the Commissioner.