9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of Assessment as well as during the proceedings u/s 263 before her. Therefore, it is prayed to hold that the order passed u/s 263 is null & void. 3. The Commissioner of Income tax failed to appreciate that the conditions precedent to passing an Order under the said section were not satisfied and hence the Order u/s.263 of the Income-tax act, 1961 is ultra vires and void. 4. The Commissioner of Income tax has erred in holding that the assessment Order dated 13 October 2016 passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and hence erred in passing an Order u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act in respect of the same. 5. The appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstance of its case and the law prevailing on the subject the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was after due consideration of the facts and the law by the Assessing Officer and hence the setting aside of the same by the Commissioner of Income tax u/s 263 of the Income tax act, 1961 is erroneous & is beyond jurisdiction and bad in law. 2. Briefly stated the assessee being resident corporate assessee, engaged in manufacturing of automobile parts was asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to why such an order should not be passed u/s.263 setting aside the aforesaid assessment order dated 13.10.2016, with a direction to the AO to frame the assessment de novo, after conducting necessary verification / enquiries. The assessee defended the same by submitting that complete details in this regard was already filed during the course of assessment proceedings and the issue of Tax Deduction at Source [TDS] was duly examined by Ld. AO for the purpose of considering disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) . It was further submitted that the data reported in the Tax Audit Report was erroneous and the same crept into the Tax Audit Report due to clerical error. However, Ld. Pr.CIT rejected the same on the premise that all the items as reported in the Tax Audit report were not examined and further mere denying the data / transaction reported in own Audit Report did not absolve the assessee from the requirement to submit evidence in support of his claim. Finally, treating the quantum order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the Ld. AO was directed to verify the same and pass a speaking order, in this regard, in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anch wise details of expenditure incurred by the assessee during the impugned AY. The further details in respect of each of the major expenses, in the format as desired by Ld. AO, was furnished along with details of TDS deducted thereupon as placed on page numbers 11 to 36 of the paper-book. After perusal of the same, Ld. AO, vide another notice u/s 142(1) dated 06/09/2016, raised a specific query relating to the same which is extracted below:- 6. On perusal of details of processing charges furnished by you, it is seen that TDS has not been deducted on payment made to Bimbh Mechanical Work and Mahindra Vehicle Manufacturing of Rs. 2,70,240/- and Rs. 1,13,125/- respectively. Reasons to showcause as to why the same should not be disallowed u/s 40a(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 7. Details of professional fees furnished by you included professional fees paid to Chandrakant B Nikha of Rs. 60,000/- on which TDS has not been deducted. Reasons to showcause as to why the same should not be disallowed u/s 40a(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The response / explanation of the same has been furnished by the Assessee vide its reply dated 03/10/2016. 6.2 The perusal of chronology of abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of every minor or major expenses. A detailed note on the expenditure on the Corporate Social Responsibility claim was given in paragraph 8 which runs into more than five pages. It is not disputed that the appellant - assessee is a Government of India undertaking and the Government has a control over the expenses of the undertaking. It is pertinent to note that during the previous assessment years, similar claims were made by the assessee - Company and the assessment orders allowing the claims have attained finality. We have minutely perused the assessment order. The claims for deductions were made by the assessee at least under 20 heads and queries were 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 allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the claims made by the assessee and wherever the claims were disallowable they have been discussed in that assessment order and there is no discussion or reference in respect of the claims that were allowed. In view of the law laid down in the judgments in the case of Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (supra) and Nirav Modi (supra) it would be necessary to hold that in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that merely because the Assessing Officer had not specifically mentioned about the claim in respect of the Corporate Social Responsibility, the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order without making any enquiry in respect of the allowability 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
