9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (7) TMI 308 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - as per CIT AO has not made any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and certain mismatch of TDS claimed by the assessee - HELD THAT - Without going into various contentions made by the assessee we observed that it is settled position of law that during the year under consideration when the assessee has not received any exempt income during the year no disallowance can be made. This issue under consideration is settled position of law by various Hon ble High Courts and coordinate Benches. Further instruction of CBDT No.5 dated 11.02.2014 was heavily relied by ld. PCIT. However we observed that the Courts have already held that the CBDT Circular have no application when the assessee has not received any exempt income. Since it is settled position of law and Assessing Officer has taken a possible view PCIT cannot impose his another possible view. Therefore the issue under consideration is decided in favour of the assessee. Excess amount of TDS claimed by the assessee due to mismatch of turnover reported in Form 26AS with regard to above - We observed that assessee has filed tax audit report and the method adopted by the assessee for recording the gross income in the case of housing project by regularly following the method of POCM. The assessee is following the said method consistently and the assessee has filed reconciliation of turnover before the AO during assessment proceedings. Since the assessee follows the method of POCM there will be always a mismatch of TDS amount and the turnover declared by the assessee. The income declared by the assessee based on the percentage of completion the assessee will declare the revenue on the basis of abovesaid method. The customers may remit the payment and deduct TDS which may not match the income declared by the assessee. Considering the method adopted regularly by it. In our considered view ld. PCIT could have asked the assessee to submit the reconciliation of the above and decide the issue by himself instead of remanding the matter back to the AO. By merely remitting these issues back to the AO the ld. PCIT has failed in his duty and mere initiation of proceedings u/s 263 is not enough he has to give clear finding on the basis of prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus sec 263 order passed by the ld. PCIT is bad in law and further even though the assessment order is silent but the submissions of the assessee shows that the Assessing Officer has accepted the submissions and taken a possible view. Accordingly the order passed u/s 263 is quashed. Assessee appeal allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this appeal are: (a) Whether the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") to cancel and remit the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) for failure of the Assessing Officer (AO) to make enquiries/verification regarding disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. (b) Whether the PCIT was justified in directing reassessment on the issue of excess claim of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) by the assessee, based on an alleged mismatch between turnover declared in the Profit and Loss Account and the amount reflected in Form 26AS. (c) Whether the Circular No. 5 dated 11.02.2014 issued by the CBDT, relied upon by PCIT for retrospective application of Section 14A disallowance principles, is applicable when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. (d) Whether the method of accounting adopted by the assessee, namely the Percentage of Completion Method (POCM), justifies the mismatch between TDS deducted by customers on payments made and the revenue declared in the Profit and Loss Account, thereby negating the need for disallowance or addition on account of excess TDS claim. (e) Whether the revisionary power under Section 263 can be exercised by PCIT merely on the ground of lack of enquiry by AO without making any addition or disallowance himself. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS (a) Legitimacy of invoking Section 263 revision on alleged failure of AO to make enquiries/verification under Section 14A: Relevant legal framework includes Section 263 of the Act, which empowers the PCIT to revise an order if it is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The power is discretionary and requires a finding of error and prejudice. The PCIT observed that the AO failed to make enquiries/verification regarding disallowance under Section 14A despite the assessee claiming no exempt income. The PCIT relied heavily on CBDT Circular No.5/2014, which provides a methodology for computing disallowance under Section 14A even if exempt income is nil, and held that the Circular applies retrospectively. The assessee contended that since no exempt income was earned during the year, no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted, relying on judicial precedents holding that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable in absence of exempt income. The assessee also argued that the AO had conducted detailed enquiry and accepted the submissions. The Court noted that it is a settled position of law that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. The Court further observed that CBDT Circular No.5/2014 has been held by various High Courts and coordinate Benches to have no application when no exempt income is earned. Consequently, the PCIT's retrospective reliance on the Circular was found untenable. The Court held that the AO had taken a possible view and the PCIT cannot substitute his opinion with another possible view by invoking Section 263. Thus, the revision on this ground was not sustainable. (b) Legitimacy of remanding the issue of excess TDS claim due to mismatch between turnover declared and Form 26AS: The PCIT observed a mismatch between turnover/sales declared by the assessee (Rs. 25,05,58,794) and the amount reflected in Form 26AS on which TDS was deducted (Rs. 51,14,99,819). The PCIT directed the AO to verify the claim and reassess the issue. The assessee explained that it follows the Percentage of Completion Method (POCM) for revenue recognition in real estate projects, as per Accounting Standard 7 and ICAI Guidance Note. The receipts shown in Form 26AS represent payments received on which TDS was deducted by buyers, whereas revenue is recognized on the basis of POCM, leading to inherent mismatch. The assessee relied on the ITAT Delhi decision in Lloyd Insulation (India) Ltd. vs DCIT, which held that TDS certificates and income recognition may not have immediate or specific nexus due to differences in accounting methods, and that TDS deduction is a machinery provision and not a charging provision. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention that the mismatch is explained by the consistent application of POCM and that the AO had accepted the explanation in previous years including AY 2017-18, which had attained finality. The Court observed that the PCIT should have sought reconciliation and decided the issue himself rather than remanding it back to the AO without making any addition or disallowance. The Court cited the decision in PCIT vs. V-Con Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd., which held that the power under Section 263 must be exercised by going into the merits and making an addition or disallowance, and not merely by remanding for further enquiry. The Court emphasized that mere initiation of proceedings under Section 263 is insufficient without recording failure on part of AO and prejudice to Revenue. Accordingly, the Court held that the PCIT's order remanding the matter back to AO without deciding on merits was bad in law. (c) Applicability of CBDT Circular No.5/2014 and retrospective effect of Explanation to Section 14A: The PCIT relied on CBDT Circular No.5/2014 for retrospective application of the Explanation to Section 14A, which provides a formula for disallowance of expenditure in relation to exempt income. The assessee contended that the Explanation to Section 14A is applicable prospectively from AY 2022-23, as held by various High Courts including the Delhi High Court in PCIT vs Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. and Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT. The assessee argued that the PCIT's retrospective application of the Circular and Explanation was contrary to judicial mandate. The Court noted the judicial pronouncements holding the Explanation is prospective and that CBDT Circulars cannot override judicial decisions. Since no exempt income was earned, the Circular's applicability was further negated. The Court concluded that the PCIT's reliance on the Circular for retrospective application was erroneous. (d) Whether the AO had conducted adequate enquiry and made a possible view: The assessee argued that the AO had issued detailed questionnaires and considered the explanations, accepted the method of accounting and the reconciliation submitted. The AO did not make any addition or disallowance on these issues, indicating acceptance of the assessee's stand. The Court found that the AO had indeed applied mind and taken a possible view, and that the PCIT could not substitute his opinion or remand the matter without recording failure or prejudice to Revenue. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "It is settled position of law that during the year under consideration, when the assessee has not received any exempt income during the year no disallowance can be made." "CBDT Circular No.5/2014 has no application when the assessee has not received any exempt income." "The deduction of tax at source is basically a machinery provision for collecting tax on the potential income of the assessee. The nexus between TDS and the corresponding income element would remain rather notional/conceptual." "The power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be exercised by the Commissioner of Income Tax, but by going into the merits and making an addition, and not by way of a remand, recording that there was failure to investigate." "Once the Assessing Officer carries out the investigation but does not make any addition, it can be taken that he accepts the plea and stand of the assessee." "Merely remitting these issues back to the AO, the ld. PCIT has failed in his duty and mere initiation of proceedings u/s 263 is not enough, he has to give clear finding on the basis of prejudicial to the interest of Revenue." Final determinations: (i) The revisionary order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 is quashed as it is without jurisdiction and bad in law. (ii) No disallowance under Section 14A is warranted in absence of exempt income and the AO's order taking a possible view is upheld. (iii) The mismatch between TDS claimed and turnover declared is explained by the consistent application of POCM and prior acceptance by AO; hence, no addition or disallowance is justified. (iv) The PCIT's remand for fresh assessment on these issues without recording failure or prejudice is improper.
|
