TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Social Responsibility The provisions of Section 263 of the Act could not have been invoked by the Commissioner of Income Tax in the circumstances of this case. The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the query under Section 142 (1) of the Act was very general in nature and the reply of the assessee was also very general in nature. In our considered view, the query pertaining to Corporate Social Responsibility was exhaustively answered and the appellant – assessee had provided the data pertaining to the expenditure under each head of the claim in respect of Corporate Social Responsibility, in detail. The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the reply/explanation of the assessee was not elaborate enough to decide whether the expenditure claim was admissible under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer is not expected to raise more queries, if the Assessing Officer is satisfied about the admissibility of claim on the basis of the material and the details supplied. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we answer the question of law in the negative and against the Revenue. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 67/2016 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2017 - SMT. V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act after holding that the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order without making any enquiry regarding the allowability of expenses claimed by the assessee under the head Corporate Social Responsibility and hence, the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. After having held so, the Commissioner of Income Tax remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment in respect of the claim of the appellant assessee pertaining to the Corporate Social Responsibility. Being aggrieved by the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act, the appellant assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, however, by the order dated 25.2.2016 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee while upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax invoking the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for redoing the assessment in respect of the said claim. The orders of the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax are challenged by the appellant assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e undertaking of the assessee. It is submitted that some incentives like placing the Company in the category of mini Navratna or Navratna are granted if Corporate Social Expenses are made to the extent of at least 2% to 3% of the total income. It is submitted that it is absolutely necessary for the Companies like the assessee Company to expend towards Corporate Social Responsibility. It is submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax could not have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act merely because the Assessing Officer has not formally recorded in the order of assessment that the claim made by the assessee towards the Corporate Social Responsibility is allowed. 4. Shri Parchure, the learned Counsel for the Revenue has supported the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax as also the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is submitted by taking this Court through the assessment order that the Assessing Officer has specifically dealt with certain items like pay revision, forest land diversion expenses, cenvet credit, R and D expenses, depreciation on leasehold land etc. in the assessment order but the Assessing Officer has not state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made in the notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act to the assessee in respect of nearly all of them. We, however, find from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer has dealt with nearly nine claims of deductions. These claims have been specifically mentioned in the assessment order and they have been discussed therein because the Assessing Officer appears to have disallowed those claims either partially or totally. In respect of the claim for the Corporate Social Responsibility and some other claims that were allowed by the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer has not made a specific reference in the assessment order. It is apparent from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer has expressed in detail about the claims that were disallowable. Where the claims were allowable, as we find from the reading of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not referred to those claims. The Corporate Social Responsibility claim is one of them. It is apparent from the notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act that a specific query in regard to the claim pertaining to the Corporate Social Responsibility was made and a detailed note after giving bifurcation of the expe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of the claim of Corporate Social Responsibility. In our view, the provisions of Section 263 of the Act could not have been invoked by the Commissioner of Income Tax in the circumstances of this case. The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the query under Section 142 (1) of the Act was very general in nature and the reply of the assessee was also very general in nature. In our considered view, the query pertaining to Corporate Social Responsibility was exhaustively answered and the appellant assessee had provided the data pertaining to the expenditure under each head of the claim in respect of Corporate Social Responsibility, in detail. The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the reply/explanation of the assessee was not elaborate enough to decide whether the expenditure claim was admissible under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer is not expected to raise more queries, if the Assessing Officer is satisfied about the admissibility of claim on the basis of the material and the details supplied. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we answer the question of law in the negative and against the Revenue. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
