ABT INVESTMENTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1, COIMBATORE

O R D E R

PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Similarly, the transaction with M/s ABT (Madurai) P Ltd having a receivable of Rs. 3,44,405/- is also a book entry/journal entry negating the presumption of diversion of funds. Under such circumstances, it is submitted that there is no diversion of the interest bearing hinds and hence the assessee pleads for dropping the proposal to make a proportionate allowance of interest expenditure to the tune of Rs. 9,58,35,029/- in the interest of justice. After considering the above reply, the NaFAC accepted the plea for dropping the proposal on the issue mentioned in the show cause notice in the present proceedings and hence re-visiting the said issue by reviewing the scrutiny assessment order in the present narrow revisional proceedings is prohibited by law. In fact, the Jurisdictional Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in their recent decision dated 23.09.2022 in had quashed the revisional order under identical circumstances. There is absolutely no scope in the context of jurisdiction assumed u/s 263 of the Act to question the acceptance of the explanation offered by the Assessee in the scrutiny assessment proceedings and reviewing the scrutiny assessment order on this aspect is completely ruled out and outside the powers vested in section 263 of the Act. Further, there is a factual error committed in the captioned notice and in this regard, it is proposed to revise the assessment order on the ground that the Assessee has not established during the assessment proceedings on the diversion of the interest free funds or own funds while however, the stand taken the Assessee in the original scrutiny assessment was completely different inasmuch as the amount reflecting against M/s Anamalais Bus Transport P Ltd Rs.41,66,39,600/- was only a book entry without any actual flow of cash. In such circumstances, the very reason for assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act falls to the ground and hence it is pleaded that the proposal to revise the scrutiny assessment order dated 14.07.2021 for the assessment year 2018-19 on the single issue incorporated in the captioned show cause notice may be dropped in the interest of justice. Dated at Coimbatore, this the 30th day of September, 2022. 3.1 By submitting the above reply before the ld. PCIT, the AR of the assessee has pleaded that the issue has already been considered by the Assessing Officer and prayed for dropping the revision proceedings. Though the ld. PCIT has agreed that the present issue of interest payment was very much part of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the ld. PCIT was of the opinion that the key issue that is missing is in the impugned assessment order (final) passed on 14.07.2021 and also silent on the issue of disallowance of the proportionate interest payment debited in the P & L account. It was further observed that had the FAO accepted the submissions of the assessee made in response to the draft assessment order, the generally accepted principles while faming the assessment, is to discuss the issue chronologically and the pass the judgement whether or not the assessee’s submission is acceptable and if it is acceptable, whether it is in accordance with law. Since the final assessment order dated 14.07.2021 was silent on the very same issue on which the Assessing Officer raised the query in the draft assessment order passed on 19.04.2021, by noting adjudicating on the merits of the issue and omission of the issue which is part of the draft assessment order, is clearly an erroneous assessment order and accordingly, the ld. PCIT, set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment.

4.1 It was further submission that just because the issue has not been discussed in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer, it cannot be held that the impugned assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Once the details are examined, it was not necessary that detailed assessment order is required to be passed. Therefore, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and submitted that the revision order passed by the ld. PCIT has to be quashed.

6.1 In case the assessee has not furnished any detailed convincing reply against the additions proposed in the draft assessment order, definitely, the said addition would have been reflected in the final assessment order. Once the Assessing Officer has received reply of the assessee against the additions proposed in the draft assessment order, after examining the details furnished by the assessee and by accepting the same, the Assessing Officer dropped the additions proposed in the draft assessment order while concluding the final assessment order. Just because, the Assessing Officer has not discussed in the final assessment order about the additions proposed in the draft assessment order, acceptance of the reply of the assessee, etc., it cannot be presumed that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

6.2 In case, if the final assessment order did not speak anything about the issue of show cause notice or proposing draft assessment order, etc., then, it can be presumed that the Assessing Officer has not examined the issues at length. In the present case, in the final assessment order, it has been clearly stated that the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny on the following issues: i. Investments/advances/loans ii. Ind-AS compliance and adjustment iii. Business loss iv. Expenses incurred for earning exempt income. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice with draft assessment order, against which, the assessee filed its reply on 17.05.2021.

6.3 The only dispute of the ld. PCIT is that had the FAO accepted the submissions of the assessee made in response to the draft assessment order, the generally accepted principles while framing the assessment order, is to discuss the issue chronologically and then pass the judgement whether or not the assessee’s submission is acceptable and if it is acceptable whether it is in accordance with law. We defer from the above observation of the ld. PCIT. When the reply of the assessee is not in accordance with law, then only it will be reflected in the assessment order describing; what was the proposal, what was the reply and as to how the reply of the assessee was found not in accordance with law. Naturally, when the Assessing Officer considered the reply of the assessee was in accordance with law, he has described in the final assessment order and just because the Assessing Officer has not elaborately discussed the addition proposed in the draft assessment order, reply of the assessee, whether the reply is in accordance with law, etc. the final assessment order cannot be held that as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus, the revision order passed by the ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act is quashed.