IT : Where Assessing Officer had taken into accounts all details and made addition wherever required, same could not be said to be prejudicial to interest of revenue, merely because no detailed discussion was made
■■■
[2013] 39 taxmann.com 187 (Andhra Pradesh)
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Commissioner of Income-tax -VI, Hyderabad
v.
Anand Food Products*
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta AND K.C. Bhanu, JJ.
ITAT Appeal No. 382 of 2013†
AUGUST 30, 2013
Section 143, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Addition as to income [Revision] - Commissioner invoked revisionary power under section 263 on ground that assessment order passed by Assessing Officer was erroneous - It appeared that during assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer had not only taken into accounts all details but also disallowed some expenditure and made addition wherever same was required - Tribunal while adjudicating matter, considered all aspects and found that Assessing Officer examined all bills, books of account, invoice payments, etc. and in fact, Assessing Officer made enquiries on issue under consideration and assessee had given a detailed explanation by letter furnishing data and that he made disallowances wherever he had not got satisfied with evidence furnished by assessee - Tribunal concluded that decision of Assessing Officer could not be prejudicial to interest of revenue simply because it did not make detailed discussion - Whether since findings of Tribunal were in consonance in law and were correct, same was to be upheld - Held, yes [Para 5] [In favour of assessee]
CASES REFERRED TO
Rajesh Goel & Sons v. CIT [2009] 29 SOT 253 (Agra) (para 2) and Mrs. Katiza Oomerbhoy v. ITO [2006] 100 ITD 173 (Mum.) (para 2).
JUDGMENT
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. - This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, dt.23.4.2010 and is sought to be admitted on the following suggested questions of law:
| "(A) | Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in nullifying the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, in spite of the fact that the prior assessment order being vitiated by infirmity of lack of appropriate enquiry into the relevant aspects? | |
| (B) | Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in proceeding on the premise that appropriate enquiry had been conducted by the Assessing Officer into the relevant aspects in spite of the same being not reflected in the order of assessment? | |
| (C) | Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal as regards the acceptance of various claims raised by the assessee in the course of the assessment were accepted by the Assessing Officer after due enquiry and investigation, can be said to be based on material on record?" |
2. The learned Tribunal in paragraph 10 of the judgment came to the fact finding as follows:
"We find that the assessee has filed all the copies of purchase bills of packing material before the assessing officer in the course of assessment proceedings which was evidenced by the copy of the letter placed at page-1 of the paper book addressed to the assessing officer by the assessee on 17.11.2006. We also find that the assessing officer made several observations in his order u/s.143(3) of the Act stating that he has verified the books of account with reference to the bills etc. Hence, the above observations made by the assessing officer clearly show that the assessing officer examined all the bills, books of account, invoice payments etc. In some cases, he made disallowances wherever he was not satisfied with the evidence furnished by the assessee. Hence in our considered view, the CIT while exercising his powers under section 263 of the Act is not permitted to substitute his estimate of income or view in place of income determined or assessed by the assessing officer. Moreover, the letter filed by the assessee for the information submitted before the assessing officer shows that the assessing officer in fact made enquiries during the assessment proceedings on the issue under consideration and the assessee had given a detailed explanation by a letter furnishing the relevant data. In such circumstances, the decision of the assessing officer cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue simply because his order does not make detailed discussion in this regard."
Thereafter, the learned Tribunal has relied on a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rajesh Goel & Sons v. CIT [2009] 29 SOT 253 (Agra) and another decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Katiza Oomerbhoy v. ITO [2006] 100 ITD 173.
3. Since a ground has been raised that the Assessing Officer in his assessment order has not discussed all the details at all, we have checked up the order of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer in his order recorded as under:
"…during the verification of the books of accounts with reference to bills etc., bills for a sum of Rs.57,966/- in the case of machinery maintenance are not produced. In respect of the bills in machinery maintenance, quotations for a sum of Rs.68,683.40 are found. Hence, expenditure for these cannot be allowed. The same are therefore disallowed and added back to the total income.
… During the verification of job works admitted with reference to the invoices etc., it is found that M/s. Parley Products Pvt. Ltd., for whom the assessee is doing job works, deducted tax at source on the Advance amount paid to the assessee, as well as on the net amount of the bill after deducting the Advance paid earlier and hence the total of the invoices have not tallied earlier.
… Some of the vouchers produced under the above heads are self-made vouchers which are not of verifiable in nature. 20% of the above was proposed to be disallowed against which the M.P., argued that the expenditure under these heads would be only on self made vouchers and bills cannot be produced and hence estimating the disallowance at 20% is higher. After discussion with him, the expenditure is disallowed @ 10% of Rs.21,25,747/- which works out to Rs.2,12,575/- for which they agreed for addition.
On verification of TDS certificates filed, it is found that the assessee received a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/- on 22.4.2003 and 22.5.2003. The same were not admitted. The assessee stated that these are the amounts for reimbursement of Central Excise payment by Parle Products Pvt. Ltd., and proof of payment to the Central Excise of the same is furnished. The same is also not debited in P&L account. Hence, the same is accepted."
Thus, it appears that the Assessing Officer has not only taken into account all the details, but also granted disallowance and addition wherever he found that the same are required to be given. It is not correct to say that the Assessing Officer did not consider all the details, as alleged. We find that the learned Tribunal while adjudicating the matter, considered all aspects, and the findings of the learned Tribunal are in consonance with law and are correct. In view of the aforesaid fact finding, we do not find any element of law in this matter.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
SB †Arising out of ITAT order, dated 23-4-2010.
Regards
Prarthana Jalan
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment