2021 (6) TMI 56 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal quashes revision order under Income Tax Act, citing incorrect assumptions by Principal Commissioner.

M/s. Narayan Polyurethane Industries Versus Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

The Tribunal quashed the revision order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, finding that the Principal Commissioner wrongly assumed an additional ... Revision u/s 263 - unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - loans received by the assessee which were also squared up by the assessee - HELD THAT:- We find that the ld PCIT had assumed revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on incorrect assumption of fact on the ground that the sum represent loan squared up during the year by the assessee. Whereas, from the aforesaid facts narrated and from the tax audit report submitted by the assessee before the ld AO, which are forming part of the records, we find that the said loan received from Shri Nilesh Patel is not at all squared up during the year. As find from the financial statement as on 31.3.2015 under the head Unsecured Loans, the party Shri Nilesh Patel is shown as outstanding loan payable. As find from paper book containing letter filed before the ld AO in the original assessment proceedings, the complete details of loans received by the assessee, squared up during the year, together with their name and address of the lenders, their PAN, mode of receipt, purpose of loan , their assessment particulars, their income tax returns etc. Admittedly , these details were filed by the assessee after the completion of assessment u/s 144 of the Act on 8.12.2017. Hence it could be safely concluded that these documents were very much available on ‘record’ when the ld PCIT examined this assessment folder. When all these details were already on record, it is reasonably expected from ld PCIT to look into those details (as already forming part of record) before arriving at any conclusion that whether the said loan from Shri Nilesh Patel was squared up during the year or not. PCIT had totally proceeded on incorrect assumption of fact. Hence we have no hesitation in quashing the revision order passed by the ld PCIT u/s 263 of the Act at once. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. Issues: Revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act regarding loans received and squared up by the assessee.Analysis:1. The appeal challenged the revision order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax regarding loans received by the assessee, which were squared up. The main issue was whether the Principal Commissioner was justified in invoking revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act.2. The assessee, a partnership firm, was engaged in manufacturing and selling Polyurethane Flexipuff Foam and providing services. The assessment for A.Y. 2015-16 was completed u/s 144 of the Act, adding loans received as unexplained cash credit. The Principal Commissioner sought revision, claiming the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to not considering all squared up loans.3. The Principal Commissioner contended that besides the loans added by the AO, another loan amount should have been considered. The assessee argued that this additional loan was not squared up during the year and was duly disclosed in the tax audit report. Documents, including confirmation from the lender and bank account statements, were submitted to support this claim.4. The Tribunal found that the Principal Commissioner wrongly assumed the additional loan was squared up during the year. The financial statement showed the loan as outstanding, and documents submitted to the AO confirmed this. The Tribunal criticized the Principal Commissioner for not reviewing these details already on record before invoking revisionary jurisdiction.5. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the revision order, holding that the Principal Commissioner's decision was based on incorrect assumptions. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the judgment was pronounced on 27/04/2021.