Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

ITAT Upholds Section 263 Revision as AO not verified 99% Subcontracting Expenses

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2025 taxguru.in 7963
Case Name
Nagabhushanam & Co. Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2018-19
Advertisement

Nagabhushanam & Co. Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)

ITAT Hyderabad Upholds PCIT’s Section 263 Revision – 99% Subcontracting Expenses Not Verified by AO- GST Statement Exposed Bogus Subcontracts

Background

  • Assessee filed ROI (30.10.2018) declaring ₹3.94 Cr income.
  • Flagged under risk management – AO noted ITC claim of ₹1.12 Cr based on invoices from 3 subcontractors (GJS Infratech, Sri Laxmi Constructions, Roll-on Projects) without actual supply.
  • AO reopened u/s 147; reassessment completed on 15.02.2023 without any addition.
  • PCIT invoked s.263 (04.03.2025), holding AO failed to verify genuineness of ₹9.38 Cr subcontract expenses against receipts of ₹9.47 Cr (99% of receipts). Directed fresh assessment

Assessee’s Arguments

  • Work contract from Reddy Veeranna Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (₹9.47 Cr) was subcontracted (₹9.38 Cr), retaining 1% margin.
  • AO issued notice u/s 143(2), assessee filed detailed submissions with agreements & bills.
  • Cited SC in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (243 ITR 83) – both error & prejudice must coexist for s.263.
  • Since AO took a view after submissions, revision not justified

Revenue’s Stand

  • AO’s order was non-speaking; no findings recorded on verification of agreements or payments.
  • Managing Partner’s statement before GST authorities admitted no actual subcontract work done & ITC was irregular.
  • No work orders of RVCPL or subcontracts were examined.
  • Hence, order erroneous & prejudicial, squarely covered by Explanation 2(a) to s.263

Tribunal’s Observations /Decision

  • AO neither verified work orders nor subcontract agreements; failed to check evidence despite 99% receipts claimed as expenses.
  • Explanation 2(a) to s.263 deems such omission as “erroneous & prejudicial.”
  • Cited Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (SC) – twin conditions satisfied.
  • PCIT rightly revised order; AO’s failure to conduct basic enquiry vitiated assessment
  • PCIT’s order upheld; reassessment set aside for de novo adjudication.
  • Assessee’s appeal dismissed

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD

Paid content

Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Vijayakumar Shetty
Qualification: CA in Practice
Company: Shetty & Co, Chartered Accountants, Mangalore
Location: Mangalore, Karnataka
Articles Published: 6,879

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.