2017 (10) TMI 416 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds AO's assessment, rules in favor of assessee, quashes CIT order under section 263

M/s Sethia Finance Trading Co. Versus ACIT, Circle-45, Kolkata

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had adequately verified the trading results, accounts of M/s Simplex Polymers, remuneration to ... Revision u/s 263 - non speaking order of AO - Held that:- Simply because the order is not a speaking order does not mean that the AO has not applied his mind. Every kind of detail and documents were submitted by the assessee, during the assessment proceedings, before the AO, therefore, it can be safely assumed that the AO has accepted the claim made by the assessee after going through the explanation and materials submitted by the assessee, pursuant to the statutory notices issued by him. So, the AO has discharged the role of investigator by seeking details and queries in respect to the issues raised by the ld. CIT and after going through the replies and documents submitted to substantiate the claim by the assessee, the AO has consciously after applying his mind as an adjudicator has taken a plausible view on the issues which cannot be termed as unsustainable in law. Moreover, the assessee cannot dictate to the AO how to write the assessment order, therefore, it is not a mistake on the part of the assessee, therefore, the assessee should not be harassed. Merely because that the AO did not discuss these details in the assessment order does not mean that he has not applied his mind. Therefore, considering the factual position, we are of the view that the order passed by the AO u/s.143(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, we quash the order passed by the CIT u/s.263 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Verification of Trading Results2. Verification of Account of M/s Simplex Polymers3. Remuneration to Partners Without Partnership Deed4. Applicability of Section 2(22)(e)5. Payments to M/s Hari Om Udyog and M/s Elparts Electronics6. Verification of Sundry DebtorsDetailed Analysis:1. Verification of Trading Results:The CIT observed that the AO did not verify the trading results of the assessee, specifically the separate trading and profit and loss account for synthetic rubber/chemicals and plastic trading. The assessee countered that all necessary details, including purchases, sales, and stock details, were submitted and examined during the assessment. The assessee maintained a stock register, and the GP rate showed a substantial increase compared to the previous year. The AO had accepted the books of accounts after due application of mind, and the purchases and sales were verified through notices issued under section 133(6). Thus, the assessee argued that there was no error in the AO's order warranting revision under section 263.2. Verification of Account of M/s Simplex Polymers:The CIT noted unusual transactions with M/s Simplex Polymers, which the AO allegedly did not verify. The assessee responded that the ledger account of Simplex Polymers was produced during the assessment and all transactions were verified by the AO. Therefore, the assessee contended that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue on this count.3. Remuneration to Partners Without Partnership Deed:The CIT raised an issue regarding the allowance of remuneration to partners without verifying the partnership deed. The assessee clarified that the partnership deed was submitted in earlier years and there was no change in it. The remuneration was allowed in previous assessments under section 143(3), and the partners paid tax on the remuneration received. Hence, the assessee argued that the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial.4. Applicability of Section 2(22)(e):The CIT presumed that loans received from M/s Aishan Electronics Pvt Ltd and M/s Sebok International Pvt Ltd were not examined for deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). The assessee argued that interest was paid on these loans, the funds were used for business, and the firm did not hold shares in the lending companies. The assessee cited judicial precedents to support that deemed dividend could not be assessed in its hands. Thus, the assessee contended that there was no error or prejudice to revenue.5. Payments to M/s Hari Om Udyog and M/s Elparts Electronics:The CIT noted that payments to these parties were not verified. The assessee explained that M/s Hari Om Udyog was a sundry debtor, and payments were received through banking channels. For M/s Elparts Electronics, a loan was given and interest was received and disclosed. The assessee provided ledger accounts and argued that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial.6. Verification of Sundry Debtors:The CIT observed that the AO did not verify the high volume of sundry debtors. The assessee argued that sales were backed by bills and vouchers, and payments were received by account payee cheque. The high percentage of sundry debtors did not impact the profit and loss account or the declared income. Therefore, the assessee contended that this issue did not render the AO's order prejudicial to the interest of revenue.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries and verifications during the assessment proceedings. The AO issued statutory notices and the assessee submitted all required details and documents. The Tribunal held that merely because the AO did not discuss each detail in the assessment order, it did not imply a lack of enquiry or application of mind. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the CIT's order passed under section 263, finding that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.Result:The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.