Case Law Details
Brief of the Case
ITAT Lucknow held in the case of M/s Juhi Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT that since enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer on all the points on which objection had been raised by CIT in the notice issued by him u/s 263, this is not a case of lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer or lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer because on all the issues, query was raised by the Assessing Officer and replies were submitted by the assessee .Only because the Assessing Officer has reached to a different conclusion and learned CIT has different conclusion, it cannot be said that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and therefore, the invocation of revisionary power u/s 263 by CIT in the present case is not valid and justified.
Facts of the Case
The question raised in this appeal relates to revision power of CIT. In this case, the AO has considered the matter and raised the queries which were also replied by the assessee, CIT wanted to revise the assessment just because he has a different conclusion.
Held by ITAT
ITAT held that it is stated in the notice that on some points, the Assessing Officer has not properly examined the case. Hence, it is seen that this is not the allegation of learned CIT that there is no enquiry or that there is no application of mind by the Assessing Officer and his allegation is that the issues were not properly examined by the Assessing Officer. This is a settled position of law by now that lack of enquiry by the powers u/s 263 but in a case of inadequate enquiry by the Assessing Officer, the revisionary powers cannot be invoked by learned CIT. Assessing Officer definitely makes the assessment order erroneous and in that situation, learned CIT may invoke the revisionary powers u/s 263 but in a case of inadequate enquiry by the Assessing Officer, the revisionary powers cannot be invoked by learned CIT.
In the present case, the first objection of learned CIT is that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs.2.80 lac and Rs.2 lac on account of advertisement and publicity expenses without deducting TDS u/s 194. In the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 142(1), the Assessing Officer has asked the assessee to furnish the details of expenses incurred under the head advertisement and publicity of Rs.4.90 lac and this is also enquired in the same notice as to whether TDS was deducted or not. Hence, it is seen that on this issue, enquiry was definitely made by the Assessing Officer. The second objection of learned CIT is that certain payments were made by the assessee in cash exceeding Rs.20,000/- in one day and therefore, there is violation of the provisions of section 40A(3) . On this issue also, we find that in the questionnaire issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 142(1), the Assessing Officer has asked the assessee regarding details of the amount inadmissible u/s 40A (3). Hence, it is seen that on this issue also, enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer in course of assessment proceedings. The third objection of learned CIT is that there is increase in the quantum of fuel and coal consumed to Rs.747.79 lac in the present year as against Rs.384.79 lac in the preceding year but there is decrease in the turnover and therefore, this is the objection of learned CIT that the overall turnover shown by the assessee looks to be understated. In this regard, we find that in the questionnaire issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 142(1), the Assessing Officer has asked the assessee to furnish details of various expenses including power and fuel consumed of Rs.747.79 lac. Hence, it is seen that on this issue also, enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer.
This is not a case of lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer or lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer because on all the issues, query was raised by the Assessing Officer and replies were submitted by the assessee and only because the Assessing Officer has reached to a different conclusion and learned CIT has different conclusion, it cannot be said that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and therefore, the invocation of revisionary power u/s 263 of the Act by learned CIT in the present case is not valid and justified. The issue in dispute in the present case is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd. as reported in [2015] 372 ITR 310 (All).
Accordingly appeal of the assessee allowed.
