TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of Income Tax was correct in assuming revisionary jurisdiction and passing order u/s.263 of the Act since the order of the Assessing Officer dated 13.12.2016 was erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 698/PUN/2019 - - - Dated:- 22-2-2021 - SHRI WASEEM AHMED , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY , JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue by : Shri Deepak Garg ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nashik dated 27.02.2019 for the assessment year 2014-15 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal in the appeal memo, however, the crux of the grievance of the assessee in this appeal before us is with regard to assumption of revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and thereby, passing order dated 27.02.2019. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Association of Person (AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent records, it is clear that the assessee has claimed deduction on account of bad debts in spite of having credit balance in BDDR account. The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax further opined that the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) dated 13.12.2016 was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue because assessment has been made without verification of the claim of written off bad debts as deduction. 6. The legislative intent for incorporating Section 263 of the Act is to provide power to the Commissioner of Income Tax for assuming revisionary jurisdiction when he finds that the order of assessment is passed erroneously so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The guiding force in determining whether the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, has to be determined from facts on record where on a particular area as mentioned by the Commissioner of Income Tax in the order u/s.263 of the Act, required verification and examination were conducted by the Assessing Officer or not. It is settle domain of law that while exercising revisionary jurisdiction and passing order u/s.263 of the Act wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not have assumed revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. 9. We find the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (2017) 85 taxmann.com 10 ( Bom.) has held and observed that mere taking a view by the Assessing Officer without having subjected the claim to examination would not make it a view of the Assessing Officer. A view has necessarily to be preceded by examination of the claim and opting to choose one of the possible results. In the absence of view being taken, merely because the issue itself was debatable, would not absolve the Assessing Officer of applying his mind to the claim made by the assessee and allowing the claim only on satisfaction after verification/enquiry on his part. A view in the absence of examination is no view but only a chance result. 10. Similarly the Pune Bench of the Tribunal had an occasion to deal with identical issue in deciding the validity of the order passed u/s.263 of the Act in ITA No.562/PUN/2019 for the assessment year 2014-15 dated 03.08.2020. The Tribunal on this issue has held and observed as follows: 8. We also find that the Assessing Officer while accepting the docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Assessing Officer who is bound by the Board Circular Instruction (supra.) has not even bothered to distinguish the aforesaid Circular vis- -vis the facts on record pertaining to the assessee and distinguishing the case based on this Board Circular and Instruction (supra.) and the case laws relied upon by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has simply accepted the explanation of the assessee and had asked for various other details without asking for specific details of bad debts written off by the assessee. That when the Assessing Officer has not done this exercise, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court (supra.) it can be stated that the Assessing Officer has not taken any view at all since in order to take a plausible view specific verification and examination of facts on record is essential which in this case, the Assessing Officer has not done. The legal parameters permits us while determining validity of order passed u/s.263 of the Act, it has to be seen whether the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Act was erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue which necessarily has arisen for non verification of facts b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is warranted; however, the ITAT s jurisdiction is not to re-write the AO s order and improve upon it, in a manner of speaking. 15. Reverting to the facts of the present case as contented by the Ld. AR for the assessee that the findings of the Assessing Officer impliedly is correct in law, where, while determining the validity of order u/s.263 of the Act we could not therefore supply reasons in respect of the assessment order, on aspects, which are not expressly reflected in the assessment order. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ashok Logani (11 taxmann.com 208), 347 ITR 22 has observed and opined that once it was found that there was no proper consideration of the issue by the Assessing Officer, the very foundation of the order of the Tribunal was knocked off. Thereafter, the Tribunal has ventured to undertake the exercise by itself satisfying about the explanation tendered by the assessee which it could not do. When the Commissioner passed the orders u/s.263 of the Act at that stage he was only required to find out as to whether the income had escaped assessment and the order was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 16. The Ld. AR for the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
