Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 355 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IC by AO - order erroneous or prejudial to interest of revenue - HELD THAT:- from the perusal of the various show cause notice and order sheet entries as incorporated in the impugned order, we find that Assessing Officer has required the assessee to furnish details of various streams of revenue giving the details of manufacturing process and the modus operandi, details of purchases, details of various sundry creditors, justify the fall in net profit rate, justify the various expenses claimed in P&L account, asked the furnished the ledger and bills, vouchers bank statement, etc. In response to various proceedings which lasted for almost more than 22 months, if assessee had filed all the details, then it cannot be held that Assessing Officer has framed the assessment without any inquiry or examination of record. We have already observed above that the finding of the ld. Pr.CIT that these documents are not available on assessment record has been found to be incorrect. Even otherwise also, if assessee has explained and reply to each and every point raised in the show cause notice along with documents and reasons submitted before the AO then it was incumbent upon Pr. CIT, at least to examine those replies and records so as to prima facie come to a conclusion that such a reasoning given by the assessee is divorced from the facts and material on record which is not tenable. It is a well settled law that if CIT is of the view that Assessing Officer has not carried out proper inquiry or there is inadequate inquiry, then he must give and record a finding that the order of inquiry made is erroneous. This can happen only if some kind of inquiry is conducted by the PCIT and he is able to establish the error or mistake made by the AO. CIT himself had to undertake proper inquiry and give reason for coming to the conclusion that assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. This has been further reiterated in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Modi care Ltd [2017 (9) TMI 1238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. Sun Beam Ltd. [2009 (9) TMI 633 - DELHI HIGH COURT] DR as well as Pr.CIT has much harped upon Explanation 2, but the said explanation will only be applicable when the order of the Assessing Officer has been passed without making inquiry or verification which should have been made. Here the observation of the Pr.CIT that Assessing Officer has not carried out any inquiry because replies and certain issue which was raised by him are not there in record, has already held found to be incorrect. Once Assessing Officer has carried out detailed inquiry and verification of the documents and was satisfied with the net profit shown by the eligible unit as well as the nature of expenses incurred by eligible and non eligible units and examined the entire details, then without there being any discrepancy or defect found by the Ld. Pr.CIT, he cannot simply set aside the assessment for passing a fresh assessment order. Thus, under these facts and circumstances, we hold that the impugned order passed u/s.263 cannot be sustained and same is quashed. Thus assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and the claim of deduction u/s.80IC is sustained and appeal of the assessee is allowed.
|