TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 965
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r on the issue of applicability of provisions of section 14A of the Act and directing the assessing officer for reexamination of the same. 4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT erred in setting aside the assessment order on the issue of examination of unsecured loan taken by the company and directing the assessing officer for reexamination of the same. 5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT erred in setting aside the assessment order on the issue of examination of TDS claim made by the company and directing the assessing officer for reexamination of the same. 6) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT erred in setting aside the assessment order on the issue of examination of interest income earned by the company and directing the assessing officer for reexamination of the same. 7) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT erred in setting aside the assessment order on the issue of examination of depreciation claim on lease hold assets of the company and directing the assessing officer for reexamination of the same. 8) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endent Auditor Report also indicate squared up loans to &from closely held companies. There 'were two sets of total TDS deducted as per assessee's submission dated 27.07.2016 being of Rs. 1,20, 05,0741and Rs. 1.20,79,395/,. as against of Rs. 1,20,07;074/as per computation as well return. Evidently, there would be substantial difference in corresponding receipts, which was not examined at the time of assessment. In the A. Y 201415 preproduction interest income was apportioned into two halves, one part of Rs. 8,83,28,063/was capitalized, while the balance of Rs. 3,21,11,251/was charged to P&L accounts. No explanation for the segregation was given and AO did not seek any justification. So far as preoperative 'interest income is concerned it surely has to be guided by section 14 of the Act. There can be no other option. As per the said section income is classified in the jive heads (i) Salaries, (U) Income from House Property, (iii) Profits & gains of business or profession. (iv) Capital gains and (v) Income from other sources. If an assessee has to incur an expenditure in order to make the earning of an income possible, then such expenditure would be clubbed wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on this issue is primafacie erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. As regard mismatch in TDS, it is observed that the order has been passed without reconciling the said mismatch making the order erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Similarly on the issue of interest income, it appears that the issue has not been carried to the logical end by examining the issue adequately making the order erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Moreover, the A.O has accepted the claim of depreciation on lease hold assets without examining the veracity of the plea of the assessee that is no such assets in the book. On this ground also there is a case of lack of enquiring which makes the order erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Lastly, as regards CSR expense it is apparent that the claim has been allowed by A.O without examining the nature and genuineness making the assessment order erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Thus, the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 21032016 suffers from lack of enquiry/inadequate verification causing the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....very different from that of a Civil Court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be accepted by a Civil Court in the absence of rebuttal. The Civil Court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the basis of pleading and evidence which comes before it. The income tax officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of return which is apparently in order but calls for further enquiry. It is his duty to ascertain the truth of facts stated in the return when the circumstances of .case are such as to provoke an enquiry. The meaning to be given to the word "erroneous" in section 263 emerges out of this context. It is because it is incumbent on the income tax officer to further such an enquiry prudent that the word "erroneous" in section 263 includes the failure to make such an enquiry. The order becomes erroneous because such an enquiry has not been and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. In view of the facts and the legal position stated above) I am of the view that the order passed on an incorrect assumption of fact....