2022 (10) TMI 230 - AT - Income Tax

Assessing Officer's Inquiry Upheld, Principal Commissioner's Order Quashed

The tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted adequate inquiries and verifications before passing the assessment order, concluding that ... Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Addition u/s 68 - share capital & unsecured loan introduced/raised during the year and the claim of depreciation and additional depreciation - case of the assessee was selected through 'CASS' selection for Complete Scrutiny, where the purpose of assessment was to scrutinize the substantial increase in share capital including creditor in the captioned year - HELD THAT:- Assessee was selected through 'CASS' selection for Complete Scrutiny, where the purpose of assessment was to scrutinize the substantial increase in share capital including creditor in the captioned year. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO made detailed enquiries on this issue & on the issue of claim of depreciation on addition of fixed assets and after consideration of time-to-time written submissions filed by the assessee and documents / evidence placed on record, the Ld. AO accepted the submission and explanation of the assessee. CIT initiated 263 proceedings on the ground that the AO has not made enquiries or verification which should have been made in respect of share capital introduced, unsecured loan raised during the year under consideration and claim of depreciation & investment allowances under section 32AC of the Act. It is not the case of the Pr. CIT that the Ld. AO did not apply his mind to the issue on hand or he had omitted to make enquiries altogether. In the instant set of facts, AO had made detailed enquiries and after consideration of material placed on record, accepted the claim of the assessee. We thus find no error in the order of Ld. AO so as to justify initiation of 263 proceedings by the Ld. Pr. CIT. Ground of appeal raised by the assessee is thus allowed. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) made adequate inquiries and verifications under section 68 of the Act regarding the equity share capital and unsecured loans.3. Adequacy of the AO's verification concerning the claim of depreciation and investment allowance under section 32AC of the Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Order Passed by Pr. CIT Under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The assessee challenged the order of the Pr. CIT, arguing that it was bad in law and should be quashed. The Pr. CIT had set aside the AO's assessment order, claiming it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The tribunal analyzed whether the AO's order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. It was emphasized that an order could only be termed erroneous if it was not in accordance with the law. The tribunal noted that the AO had made inquiries and applied his mind before passing the assessment order, and the mere fact that the Pr. CIT had a different opinion did not justify the initiation of proceedings under section 263.2. Adequacy of the AO's Inquiries and Verifications Under Section 68 Regarding Equity Share Capital and Unsecured Loans:The tribunal scrutinized whether the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries regarding the equity share capital and unsecured loans. The AO had issued notices under section 142(1) and received detailed responses from the assessee, including PAN details, returns of income, and bank statements of the shareholders and creditors. The AO had accepted the genuineness of the share capital and unsecured loans after verifying these documents. The tribunal cited various judicial precedents, including the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto and the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat-2 v. Shreeji Prints (P.) Ltd., which distinguished between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. It was held that the AO's inquiries were adequate and the Pr. CIT could not impose his understanding of the extent of inquiry required.3. Adequacy of the AO's Verification Concerning the Claim of Depreciation and Investment Allowance Under Section 32AC:The tribunal examined whether the AO had adequately verified the claim of depreciation and investment allowance. During the assessment proceedings, the AO had asked for and received detailed information about the assets purchased, including copies of bills and payment details. The AO had allowed the claim after considering the voluminous data provided by the assessee. The tribunal referred to the Mumbai ITAT's decision in Sh. Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO, which stated that the AO's opinion on the extent of inquiry should be respected unless it was shown to be unreasonable. The tribunal concluded that the AO had made adequate inquiries and verifications regarding the depreciation and investment allowance claims.Conclusion:The tribunal held that the AO had made detailed inquiries and applied his mind before passing the assessment order. The Pr. CIT's initiation of proceedings under section 263 was not justified, as the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the order passed by the Pr. CIT was quashed.Order Pronounced:The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the Court on 03/10/2022 at Ahmedabad.