TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are unable to persuade ourselves to accept to the finding recorded by the ld. PCIT that no enquiries per se were carried out by the ld. AO with regard to long term borrowings and other current liabilities in the scrutiny assessment proceedings - aforesaid details of long term borrowings and other current liabilities were admittedly filed before the ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings and the ld. AO on examination of the same had arrived at the right conclusion that those liabilities are indeed genuine and had accordingly resorted not to make any addition thereon. Merely because there is no discussion in the assessment order regarding a particular item enquired by the ld. AO, it does not make the order of the ld. AO erroneous. AO could be expected to address only those issues on which he is not in agreement with the submissions / claims made by the assessee in the return of income. Hence, only disputed issue is the subject matter of discussions in the assessment order. We hold that the ld. AO is not required to write a thesis and record his finding in the assessment order on the aspects which he is accepting. What is required for the purpose of initiation of Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Y.2015-16. 2. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether the ld. Pr. Commissioner (PCIT) was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is a non-banking financial company. We find that the assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y.2015-16 on 31/10/2015 declaring total income of ₹ 65,330/-. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 15/12/2017 determining total income at ₹ 5,98,08,120/-. Later, this assessment was sought to be revised by the ld. PCIT by invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act on the ground that assessee had long term borrowings of ₹ 8,62,57,029/- and other current liabilities of ₹ 86,30,91,880/- which were not verified by the ld.AO while completing the assessment proceedings. Non-verification of the said details and non-enquiry thereon had caused prejudice to the interests of the revenue and also making the order of the ld. AO erroneous in the mind of the ld. PCIT. Accordingly, he passed revision order u/s.263 of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich was admittedly filed before the ld. AO. We find that these two letters are already on record which has also been acknowledged by the ld. PCIT in his revision order. While this is so, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept to the finding recorded by the ld. PCIT that no enquiries per se were carried out by the ld. AO with regard to long term borrowings and other current liabilities in the scrutiny assessment proceedings. We find that the aforesaid details of long term borrowings and other current liabilities were admittedly filed before the ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings and the ld. AO on examination of the same had arrived at the right conclusion that those liabilities are indeed genuine and had accordingly resorted not to make any addition thereon. Merely because there is no discussion in the assessment order regarding a particular item enquired by the ld. AO, it does not make the order of the ld. AO erroneous. It is very well settled that the ld. AO could be expected to address only those issues on which he is not in agreement with the submissions / claims made by the assessee in the return of income. Hence, only disputed issue is the subject matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded to the same, then even if an Assessment order does not mention the same, it does not mean that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the issues. It would be well nigh impossible for an Assessing Officer to complete all assessments assigned to him under Section 143(3) of the Act if he is required to deal with all issues which arose during the Assessment Proceedings. Thus, the Assessment Order primarily deal with only those issues in respect of which the Assessee has not been able to satisfy him and give reasons for his conclusion. This would enable the Assessee to challenge the same, if aggrieved. In fact the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd. reported in 309 ITR 67 has observed that if an assessment order were to incorporate the reasons for upholding the claim made by an assessee, the result would be an epic tome and not an assessment order. In this case, during the assessment proceedings for both the Assessment Years, the Assessing Officer issued a query memos to the assessee, calling upon him to justify the genuineness of the gifts. The Respondent-Assessee responded to the same by giving evidence of the communications received from his father ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G Housing Projects (supra). In fact the Delhi High Court in DG Housing Projects (supra) while so holding placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Gabriel (India) Ltd., (supra). It is very important to note that the CIT in his order under Section 263 of the Act has recorded the fact that there has been no adequate inquiry. Thus, this is not a case of no inquiry, warranting order under Section 263 of the Act. Thus, this objection on the part of the Revenue, is also not sustainable. 10. The Revenue placed reliance upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in DG Housing Projects Ltd., (supra) that as the Assessing Officer had not enquired into the source of the source of the gifts received by the Assessee, the Assessment Order is erroneous. The aforesaid decision holds that the power of Revision under Section 263 of the Act would normally be exercised in case of no enquiry and not in cases of inadequate enquiry. However, even in case of inadequate enquiry by the Assessing Officer, the order of the Assessing Officer could be erroneous in two classes of situation. The first class would be where orders passed by the Assessing Officer are ex-facie erroneous i.e. a decision r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts powers under Section 263 of the Act noticed that the Assessee had after having pressed his claim for expenditure in cash, withdrew the claim by withdrawing the revised return of income. This was done only after the enquiry had commenced. This withdrawal of revised income and consequent claim for cash expenditure was contrary to the stand of the Assessee himself. This change on the part of the Assessee on commencement of enquiry, made further enquiry into his claim for cash expenditure necessary. In the above facts, the CIT while exercising his powers under Section 263 of the Act found that the facts on record per se mandated an enquiry to be made into the claim of the Assessee and not doing the same resulted in the order being erroneous. Thus, the Bachchan's case was a case where once the claim was withdrawn, then enquiry which was to be conducted, was aborted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, a case of non-enquiry. It may have been different, if the Assessing Officer had enquired into the cash expenditure and its source as claimed, to come to his own conclusion and even accepted the stand of the Assessee. In such a case, even if the CIT would have taken a view that the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
