ICICI Bank Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that non-examination of the details clearly makes the order of AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, PCIT correctly assumed the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
Facts- Assessee is a company engaged in banking operations and related activities showing income from banking activities, dividends, interest on debentures, leasing, deposits and advances and commission fee etc.
AO passed the assessment order on 12/02/2019 u/s 143 (3) rws 144C (3) of the Act after making various additions/ disallowances. Thereafter, PCIT examined the records and held that the order of the learned Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that order of the learned PCIT does not show that what is the error in allowing the claim of the assessee wherein the amount is debited to the profit and loss account as write off .therefore, on this issue we do not find that there is any error in the order of the learned assessing officer in allowing the claim of the assessee which is after calling for the explanation and correctly allowed. Therefore, on the same issue of the bad debts allowed of Rs. 3,126,937,766/– the order of the learned PCIT is not sustainable.
Held that it cannot be the case that the amount of deduction is allowable to the assessee higher than what is not claimed in the return of income without there being a revised return before the LD AO. Therefore, it is in clear violation of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in 284 ITR 323 in case of Goetz India limited versus CIT. Therefore, we uphold the action of the learned PCIT in holding that claim allowed by the assessing officer higher than that claimed in the return of income without assessee filing any revised return is definitely erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, to that extent on this issue the action of the learned PCIT is upheld in holding that assessee has been allowed excess deduction of Rs. 1,592,224,604/– under section 36 (1) (viia) of the act.
Held that non-examination of the details clearly makes the order of the learned assessing officer erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Further, it is the claim of the assessee that this is based on the audit objection raised by the Director-General of Audit, Mumbai. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned PCIT because even if there is an audit objection, he has applied his mind independently and held that order of the AO is erroneous to that extent. In the result on this issue, we hold that the learned PCIT has correctly assumed the jurisdiction and correctly held that the order of the learned AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
