Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 985 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - As per CIT, claim of deduction of expenses with respect to the purchase, expenses, brokerage or interest is not in accordance with the law - AO has not verified the Sundry Creditors, other expenses, brokerage paid and unsecured loan - HELD THAT:- We find that the Assessing Officer has called for all the information required for making assessment, have perused the relevant details filed by the assessee, wherever the details are not coming forth the requisite penalty notices were issued and the balance information was obtained and verified. PCIT has also called for the report of the learned Assessing Officer where AO has also shown that requisite notices under Section 133(6) of the Act were issued and replies were obtained from lenders. It is not the case of the learned PCIT that the AO has allowed the claim of the assessee or not made addition/ disallowances, which should have been made as per law. Only reason for holding the order of AO erroneous is that interest was not examined if same were utilized for the purpose of the business, the expenses were correct or genuine and whether for brokerage expenses services were rendered or not. PCIT did not find single instances despite having all the information available with him, which is even remotely suggesting and supporting the reasons for which order under Section 263 of the Act was passed. If the order has been passed without making enquiries or verification which are reasonable and prudent officer should have carried out, in that case no doubt the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer becomes erroneous. However, the learned PCIT should have shown that what are the further enquiries or verification should have been made by AO which he has failed to do. The revisionary authority should be in a position to show that failure to make the enquiry in a particular fashion, which should have been made by the man of reasonable prudence, and learned Assessing Officer has failed to do so. This could have been shown by also looking at the past assessment history of the assessee. In fact the assessee has shown that in earlier assessment year passed under scrutiny assessment did not result into any addition. There is nothing in the revisionary order to show that the claim of deduction of expenses with respect to the purchase, expenses, brokerage or interest is not in accordance with the law. Also not shown that fresh loans taken by the assessee and he has failed to discharge initial onus. In the result, we do not find that the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|