TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax validly invoked revisional jurisdiction under section 263 to revise the assessment on account of unsecured loan of Rs.20,00,000/- received from a company shown as "Strike Off" on MCA; (ii) Whether deduction for employee provident fund contribution of Rs.14,796/- paid after the due date is to be disallowed under section 36(1)(va).
Issue (i): Whether the order under section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue for failure to make inquiries/verification regarding genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender, thereby justifying revision under section 263.
Analysis: The Tribunal examined assessment record, notices issued under section 142(1) and the replies and documents furnished to the Assessing Officer relating to the unsecured loan. It applied the legal standard from Malabar Industries and related authorities that revisional power under section 263 requires the order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue and cannot substitute the Assessing Officer's judgment where inquiries were made and a plausible view was taken. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had made inquiries, considered documentary evidence (including bank statements, ledgers, ITRs and confirmations) and applied his mind; the Principal Commissioner only took a different view on the same record.
Conclusion: The invocation of section 263 in respect of the unsecured loan is not justified; the Assessing Officer's order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. This aspect is decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the provident fund contribution of Rs.14,796/- paid after the prescribed due date is not allowable under section 36(1)(va).
Analysis: The Tribunal considered the timing and circumstances of the payment and the legal position regarding section 36(1)(va) including the authorities relied upon by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted the Supreme Court precedent cited by the Department and examined applicability of the provision and the cited case-law.
Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the view adverse to the assessee on this issue; the disallowance stands and this aspect is decided against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed in part the revisional order under section 263 setting aside the assessment in respect of the unsecured loan is quashed, while the challenge to the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) is dismissed; overall the decision effects a partial relief to the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 263 cannot be invoked to substitute the Assessing Officer's judgment where the AO has made enquiries, considered the assessment record and adopted a plausible view; revision is permissible only where the order is shown to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue by lack of requisite inquiries or by adoption of an unsustainable view in law.
TaxTMI 
