Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 149 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Case is selected for limited scrutiny u/s 143(2) - inadequate or no inquiry - Large other expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss A/c and Mismatch between income/receipt credited to P&L A/c considered under other heads of income and income from heads to income other than business/profession - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that under the limited scrutiny the Ld. A.O is required to keep his investigation and examination limited to the extent of the reasons for which limited scrutiny has been taken up. So his focus should be limited to the reasons but in such situation what is required from the A.O is to put best of his focus and pinpointed examination of information of the assessee so as to arrive at the correct income of the assessee. The file records should speak by itself that the A.O has given/delivered his best to justify that in the scrutiny for limited purpose, no stone is left unturned for the issues raised in the limited scrutiny case by way of in depth examination. Looking to the reasons and the enquiry conducted by the Ld. A.O as far as the reason No.3 “Large other expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss Account” and reason No.5 i.e. “Mismatch between income/receipt credited to P&L A/c considered under other heads of income and income from heads to income other than business/ profession”, are concerned we find that the Ld. A.O has clearly observed in the assessment order that he has checked the books of accounts, bills and vouchers and has conducted sufficient enquiry and had made some disallowance of expenses. Once enquiry has been conducted with specific observation of having checked the books of accounts, bills and vouchers then in these circumstances Ld. PCIT was not justified in invoking the provisions u/s 263 of the Act and holding that the assessment needs to be set aside since the Ld. A.O has not examined properly the reasons No. 3 & 5 mentioned herein above which were also the reasons for selecting the case of limited scrutiny. High ratio of refund to TDS and low net profit or loss from large gross receipts -The details of sales made in the preceding and current year and the details for increase in purchase cost were the bare minimum details which the Ld. A.O could have gone through to form an opinion. Merely accepting the few liner reply of the assessee cannot be held to be sufficient or minimum enquiry in case of such limited scrutiny. The enquiry conducted by the Ld. A.O in the instant case for reasons 1 & 2 cannot be termed as adequate enquiry. Rather looking to the reply given by the assessee which is not at all clear in itself, in our view the Ld. A.O has not conducted any enquiry with regard to reasons No. 1 & 2 relating to High ratio of refund of TDS and Low Net profit or loss shown for large gross receipts. Thus Ld. PCIT was justified in setting aside assessment order by invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act and holding that the Ld. A.O has not conducted proper enquiry with reference to Reasons No. 1 & 2. Mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A(2)(b) reported in audit report and ITR - One of the information relates to payment to related persons u/s 40A(2)(b). The auditor take information from the assessee and gives the details of the relatives with the amount of payment and the nature of such expenditure in the format provided in Form 3CD. These details may help the Assessing Officer to examine the payment related persons if the case is selected for scrutiny. We can say that these details assist the Assessing Officer to frame a correct assessment and energy is saved to gather related information from the huge financial data maintained by the assessee. There is hardly any occasion that such payment to relatives is disallowed by the Tax Auditor in his report by way of qualification of Audit Report and the same amount is mentioned in the ITR. Since no disallowance is made by the Tax Auditor the details of payment made to the relatives is mentioned in Report but the amount in ITR is ‘NIL’ there occurs mismatch. Now when the case has been selected for limited scrutiny u/s 143(2) of the Act with one of the reasons relating to the mismatch to payment made to relatives it is not that simple that the Ld. A.O merely matches the I.T return to the Tax Audit return and comes to a conclusion that there is no mismatch. It will be too narrow approach which cannot be accepted in scrutiny cases. So what is required on the part of the Ld. A.O is to call for the details for the payments made to the related persons and examine the transactions as per the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and after examining the details if he frames a view that such payments are neither excessive nor unreasonable with regard to fair market value and goods and services, may infer that no disallowance is called for. This examination of the transaction of payment made to relatives u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act should be well documented and assessment records should speak by itself about the enquiries conducted by the Ld. A.O. The records of the instant case speaks that no details were filed by the assessee before the Ld. A.O to prove the reasonableness of payments made to relatives nor any indication is there on behalf of the Ld. A.O to call for specific details relating to payment to relatives u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Thus in our considered view there is “no enquiry” about the reasons No.4 i.e mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A(2)(b) and therefore Ld. PCITT has rightly invoked his power u/s 263 of the Act setting aside the order of Ld. A.O with regard to these reasons. We are of the considered view that the action of Ld. PCIT of invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act and setting aside the assessment order is partly held to be justified. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
|