2022 (7) TMI 1109 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, finding Commissioner's orders beyond jurisdiction

DPD Industries Ltd. Versus Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda Range, Bathinda

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, determining that the orders passed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner under Section 263 were beyond jurisdiction. The ... Revision u/s 263 - Addition u/s 40A (3) and additional depreciation claimed by the assessee which was not verified accordingly excess depreciation was required to be disallowed - HELD THAT:- The assessment proceeding is continued by verification of expenses as required by the ld AO. The ‘a’ provided details during proceeding. Only in point of additional depreciation the issue is covered during filing of return with financial statement & ld AO had taken care during computation to total income. Where specific issue related to assessee-company's claim of higher rate of depreciation was raised by AO in scrutiny assessment and assessment order was passed after detailed submissions made by assessee were duly accepted. Mere non-mentioning of specific reasons for accepting explanation of assessee by AO in assessment order could not be reason to invoke revisionary powers under section263. PCIT had invoked the section 263 which is beyond the jurisdiction. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. Issues:1. Applicability of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Verification of expenses and depreciation claimed by the assessee.3. Treatment of unsecured loan from M/s DPD & Sons.Issue 1: The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Civil Station, Bathinda under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2012-13. The original order was passed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-III, Ferozepur. The assessee contended that the application of Section 263 was not justified as the Assessing Officer had already made necessary inquiries and taken a plausible view. The Coordinate Bench's judgment supported the view that when an AO accepts the assessee's claim based on a possible view after proper inquiry, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 cannot be exercised. The Tribunal found that the AO's actions were not lacking bonafides, and the specific issue regarding depreciation was duly addressed during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the invocation of Section 263 by the Ld. PCIT was deemed beyond jurisdiction, and the appeal was allowed.Issue 2: The expenses claimed by the assessee, including electricity repair expenses, generator maintenance, legal fees, etc., were verified during assessment proceedings. An addition of Rs. 4,00,000 was made to the total income based on the Assessing Officer's examination. The Ld. Pr.CIT set aside the order citing cash payments and excess depreciation claimed. The Tribunal noted that the AO had already considered the additional depreciation issue during computation of total income, and the specific issue raised was adequately addressed by the assessee. The Tribunal relied on a Mumbai Bench order to support the view that the AO's acceptance of the explanation without detailed inquiries did not render the assessment order erroneous. The Tribunal concluded that the invocation of Section 263 was unwarranted.Issue 3: The treatment of an unsecured loan from M/s DPD & Sons was also a point of contention. The Ld. Pr.CIT set aside the issue for further verification, alleging that the loan's genuineness was not adequately verified by the AO. However, the assessee argued that this point was not raised in the Ld. Pr.CIT's requisition under Section 263(1), and thus, setting aside the issue was irrelevant in terms of providing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee. The Tribunal considered this argument and found that the Ld. Pr.CIT's actions were not in line with the principles of natural justice, leading to the allowance of the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, finding that the orders passed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner under Section 263 were beyond jurisdiction and not based on factual or legal grounds. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper inquiry by the Assessing Officer and the need for justifiable reasons to invoke revisionary powers under the Income Tax Act.