AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 981
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roneous. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of Ld. Pr. CIT that the order under revision is perverse is based on incorrect assumption of facts and in complete disregard to the evidences furnished before him during revision proceedings. " 3. The facts in brief are that assessee company is engaged in the business of road construction, civil constructiongiven by the PWD Department and for collection, operation and management of toll plazas. The return of income was filed on 1.10.2015 declaring income of Rs. 7,19,24,790/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS mainly to verify the following three reasons: 1. Large other Expenses claimed in the P& L Account; 2. Mismatch in sales turnover reported in audit report in ITR; & 3. Mismatch in amount paid under Section 40A(2)(b) in audit report and ITR. 4. The ld. Assessing Officer after calling for the details on the points on which the case was selected for scrutiny and in response to which assessee has filed its detailed reply along with the evidences and books of accounts. After examining all the details, which were called for from time to time, return of income was accepted vide order dated 12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same manner. Prima-facie these bills seem to be bogus, manipulated and not genuine. The AO has not made any effort to cross examine the person/concerns of these bills and had simply accepted and allowed the claim of the assessee. Considering such a substantial amount involved, the AO must have either called for information u/s 133(6) from these parties or must make necessary enquiries before allowing the same. The period of these job works is not ascertainable without any date on it. It is not understandable how the AO has accepted these bills without having any date on it. Further the AO has not made any enquiries or verification which should have been made before allowing the claim of other expenses which is approximately 9.32% of the total sales turnover this year. This other expense amount is almost 1048%of this year's net profit of Rs. 6,67,17,547/-. The AO has neither examined the genuineness of these expenses nor examined its nature I.e. whether exclusively or wholly for the purpose of business under section 37(1) of the IT Act. The main reason for selection of scrutiny in CASS remained unexamined. The assessment order may be treated as erroneous so far as prejudicial to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e him along with the details that were submitted before the Assessing Officer and held that no enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer in respect of job charges and, therefore, there was failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to conduct enquiry in the nature of such payment and, therefore, such assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. He further observed that the Assessing Officer should have conducted enquiry under Section 133(6) of the Act from these parties and in absence of such enquiry it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has made any adequate and proper enquiry. Accordingly, he set aside the assessment order to make fresh assessment on this issue. 11. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the various questionnaires and replies and the details filed before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings especially with regard to the job work charges and so the validity for allowability of the same. It was only after detailed scrutiny of these details including TDS certificate, bills and vouchers; the Assessing Officer had accepted the payment of job charges. No where the PCIT had disputed tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....take a view to accept the job work as claimed. The Pr.CIT only discussed the failure to issue notice u/s 133(6) for the fact of the labour being mobile. But no convincing reason is given to rebut the above argument. In any case the view taken by the AO is not something which could not have been taken by a person of ordinary prudence. The fact that the payments have been made through cheques after deduction of TDS u/s 194C is also not dealt by the revisionary authority and the fact that the quantum of expenditure under the head is lower, which is clear from records and argued before him through the submission, remained unconsidered in the impugned order. Thus, it is obvious that the material brought by the assessee for the consideration of Ld. CIT have not been fully factored in by the Ld. CIT; and the Ld. CIT has not fully dealt with the entire force of assessee's submissions before making an adverse decision against the assessee. Moreover, the Ld. CIT has observed in a cryptic, summary and nonspeaking manner in aforesaid order dated, that the AO had not conducted requisite enquiry/investigation on the job work claimed without dealing with submissions made and materials placed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements. 1. CIT vs AmritlalBhogilal& Co.34 ITR 130 (SC) 2. CIT vs Smt. AnnapoornammaChandershekhar 17 Com 120 (Kar H.C.) 3. Gabriel India Limited, 203 ITR 108 (Bombay H.C.) 4. CIT vs Nirav Modi,390 ITR 292 (Bombay H.C.) 5. CIT vs Max India Ltd.295 ITR 282 (SC) 6. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 7.CIT vs Vodafone Essar South Ltd., 212 Taxman 184 (Del) (affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CC 9308/2013). 15. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the ld. PCIT and submitted that here there were 27 parties from whom assessee had done job work and transaction is of more than Rs. 10.87 crores which at least required prima facie enquiry by the Assessing Officer. Even on test-check basis which has not been done and, therefore, such an order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order of the learned Pr. CIT should be confirmed and the Assessing Officer should conduct proper enquiry before accepting the claim of the assessee. 16. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the orders of the lower authorities an....