TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resh enquiry with respect expenses and unsecured loan, which was the subject matter of original scrutiny assessment proceedings and not re-assessment proceeding, as such, the order u/s 263 is bad-in4aw and liable to be quashed. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order is bad in law in so far as the Ld. Pr. CIT seeks to revise the reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act which is itself bad in law and liable to be quashed. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the re-assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act is bad in law in so far as the notice u/s 148 had been issued without the appropriate approval u/s 151 of the Act, as such, the revisionary proceedings with respect to the reassessment order which is itself non-est in law is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. That the approval is taken from Additional CIT instead of Joint CIT as required u/s 151 of the Act. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reason to believe recorded for reopening of assessment u/s 148 is bad in law in so far as it has been recorded that sub-contract expenses amounting to Rs. 2,35,25,258/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usiness of Civil construction work, filed its return of income for AY 2014-15 on 29/11/2014, declaring total income of Rs. 7,47,37,490/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961 on 30/12/2016, determining the total income at Rs. 9,82,62,750/-. Subsequently, a survey action u/s 133A of the I.T.Act, 1961 was carried out at the business premise of the assessee on 30/08/2016. During the course of survey proceedings, a copy of the balance sheet for AY 2014-15 certified by the auditors on 31/08/2014 was found and as per the said balance sheet the turnover was found declared at Rs. 219,25,42,121/-. Consequent to survey u/s 133A of the Act, the assessment has been reopened u/s 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 02/02/2018. In response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee has filed return of income on 09/02/2018, declaring total income at Rs. 9,82,62,750/-. The assessee had also requested for copy of reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment and as requested, the reasons for reopening of the assessment was supplied to the assessee, vide letter dated 12/02/2018. The assesee has filed its objections for reopening assessment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial statements, however no enquiry has been made regarding said discrepancy in unsecured loans, as per two set of financial statements. Therefore, he opined that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous, insofar as, it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly, issued a show cause notice. 5. In response to show cause notice, the assessee, vide letter dated 18/07/2019, 17/09/2019, 09/10/2019 and 22/10/2019 has submitted that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is neither erroneous, nor it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, because the issue of suppression of turnover has been thoroughly examined by the Ld. AO in reassessment proceedings, which is clearly evident from the fact that the assessment has been reopened for the purpose of verification of suppression of turnover on the basis of findings of survey proceedings initiated against the assessee u/s 133A of the I.T.Act, 1961. The assessee, further submitted that it has explained the discrepancy in turnover declared in two set of financial statements before the Ld. AO during the reassessment proceedings, as per which the accountant made a mistake, while taking out the printout o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther noted that although, the Ld. AO seems to have been verified issue of suppression of turnover, but, fact remains that the Ld. AO never ever has made any attempt to call for necessary details, even though there are large differences in expenditure claim to have incurred for payment to contractor and sub-contractor, power and fuel expenses, tender expenses and staff welfare expenses, which is evident from the fact that he has simply accepted the story of a mistake given by the assessee, in respect of parallel set of financial statements prepared for 17 months and concluded assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961. The Ld.PCIT, further noted that the Ld. AO not even verified two set of financial statements with reference to unsecured loans, where there is a huge difference, in respect of unsecured loans shown in two balance sheets, however details of the date of the return of these loans and consequent application of provisions of 68 of the Act has not been examined by the Ld. AO. Therefore, he opined that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous, insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly, set aside the assessment order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gencies, like BMC etc. The assessee has also filed various details, in respect of labour contract expenses incurred for the year. The Ld. AO after verification of necessary details filed by the assessee has completed the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act, without making any addition/adjustments to total income declared for the year. He, further submitted that it is a settled position of law that once, the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment is fails and no addition is made on this aspect, then the Ld. AO is precluded from making any other additions, even though he has come across certain issues during the assessment proceedings. Once, the Ld. AO himself is precluded from making any additions, and then directing the Ld. AO to make enquiry/addition on other issues is outside the scope of provisions of section 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR, further submitted that, it is also settled position of law that an authority framing an assessment or revision of any proceedings shall confine its jurisdiction to the issues questioned in the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment or show cause notice issued for revision of proceedings without any modifications or i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with regard to the proceedings to known, whether the Ld. AO has carried out required enquiries to be conducted in accordance with law. In this case, it is very clear from the facts brought out by the Ld.PCIT that the Ld. AO had committed an error in not making any further enquiry into details as regards difference in turnover reported, as per two set of audited financial statements and also, various expenses claimed in those set of financial statements, but simply accepted the arguments of the assessee and concluded the assessment, which resulted in erroneous order passed, which caused prejudice to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the Ld.PCIT was right in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and there is no reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the Ld.PCIT. In this regard, he relied upon the following judicial precedents:- 1. Lalsingh Estate (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income tax [1994] 74 taxman 525(Gau.) 2. Arvee International vs. Additional Commissioner of Income tax , Range 19(1) [2006] 101 ITD 495 (Mum.) 3. Pr.CIT-II vs. Braham Dev Gupta in ITA No.907/Mum/2017, C.M.Appl. 38789/2017(Delhi High Court), dated 20.07.2018 4. Kushi Conbuild P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n revision. The order of the ITO in question must not only be erroneous but also the error in the ITO's order must be of such a kind that it can be said of it that it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In other words, merely because the officer's order is erroneous, the CIT cannot interfere. Again, merely because the order of the officer is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, then again, that is not enough to confer jurisdiction on the CIT to interfere in revision. These two elements must co-exist. This is because, the first of the two requirements namely, (i) the order is erroneous and (ii) the same is also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, is not satisfied. Similarly, if an order is erroneous but not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, then also the power of suo-moto revision cannot be exercised. Any and every erroneous order cannot be the subjectmatter of revision because the second requirement also must be fulfilled. There must be some prima facie material on record to show that tax which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich the impugned assessment has been reopened, in respect of issues related to suppression of gross receipts on the basis of two parallel set of financial statements prepared by the assessee, which was found during the course of survey conducted u/s 133A of the Act. As per said two set of financial statements, the assessee has reported turnover of Rs. 219.25 crores in one set of financial statements prepared for a period of 17 months 01/04/2013 to 31/08/2014 and in another set of financial statements prepared for period of 12 months from 01/04/2013 to 31/03/2014, which was also part of return filed for the year, the turnover has been shown at Rs. 132.11 crores. The assesee has explained difference between turnover shown in two set of financial statement, while filing objections to reopening assessment u/s 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and explained that the turnover reported in financial statements prepared and audited for the year for a period of 12 months is supported by necessary TDS certificates issues by principals and also, which is matched with data available in Form 26AS of IT data base. The assessee, further, clarified that it is executing works contract for government agencie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther additions can be made with respect to issues for which no reasons were recorded. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Jet Airways India Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 has categorically held that if, the Ld. AO accepts the contention of the assessee and holds that the income for which, he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some other income and if, he intends do so, a fresh notice u/s 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee. A similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High court in case of shri. Ram Singh (306 ITR 343) and Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Atlas Cycle Industries (180 ITR 319). The Hon'be Delhi High Court in case of Software Consultants (21 Taxmann.com 155) held that where the AO did not make any additions on issues inrespect of which reasons were recordrd for issue of notice u/s 148, a general inference is that the Ao could not have made addition on account new issue and, thus Commissioner could not have exercised revisional jurisdiction. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 of the Act, for the purpose of examining the issue of difference in turnover reported in two set of financial statement and also, difference in unsecured loans reported in two set of financial statement prepared by the assessee. Admittedly, the issue of suppression of turnover was a subject matter of reassessment proceedings and the genisis of issue orginated from survey proceedings conducted u/s 133A and which was followed by reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. However, in reassessment proceedings, there is no addition was made, in respect of suppression of turnover. It is also a matter of fact that it is not a case of the Ld.PCIT that the Ld. AO has never examined the issue of turnover in reassessment proceedings, in fact the assessee has filed detailed written submissions, while filing objections for reassessment and the same has been reproduced by the Ld. AO in his assessment order. Therefore, it cannot be said that, the Ld. AO has not conducted required enquiries he ought to have been conducted under the law in respect of suppression of turnover. It is a settled position of law that once, the issues on which, the revision proceedings was initiated were already su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Ld.PCIT having accepted the fact that the Ld.AO has examined the issue of suppression of turnover should have confined the scope of his revisional powers to the issue, which he had questioned in his show cause notice, rather than going to the issue of various expenditure, which is not at all a subject matter of proceedings u/s 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961. As, we have already stated in earlier paragraph, when AO himself is precluded from making any other additions in reassessment proceedings, when he failed to make additions on the issues on which reasons for reopening of assessment was recorded, then certainly in our consider view the Ld.PCIT is also precluded from taking those issues in revisional proceedings u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961. Further, the issue of various expenses questioned by the Ld.PCIT was explained by the assessee during the assessment proceedings with reference to two set of financial statements and the Ld. AO has accepted the claim of the assessee and completed assessment without making any additions on the issues. It is also a matter of fact that the two set of financial statement have been prepared for two different periods and the difference of income and ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the order passed by him was erroneous. It appears that the resolution passed by the board of the appellant-company was no! placed before the Assessing Officer Thus, there was no material to support the claim of the appellant that the said amount represented compensation for loss of agricultural income. He accepted the entry in the statement of me account filed by the appellant in the absence of any supporting material and without making any inquiry On these facts the conclusion that the order of the Income-lax Officer was erroneous is irresistible We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court has rightly held that the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263 was justified. The second contention has to be rejected in view of the finding of fact recorded by the High Court. It was not shown at any stage of the proceedings, That The amount in question was fixed or quantified a& loss of agricultural income and admittedly It is not so round by the Tribunal. The further question whether it will tie agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1A) of the Act as elucidated by this court in CIT v Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy 11957] 32 ITR 466, doe....