Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A”, BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & Dr. A. L. SAINI, AM
BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & Dr. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपीलसं./ ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Rista Fisheries & Infrastructure Vs. ITO, Ward-13(4), Kolkata. Ltd. 282, D.H. Road, West Bengal. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAECR6032J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri K. M. Roy, FCA Respondent by : Dr. A. K. Nayak, CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 04/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax - 4, Kolkata dated 25.02.2019 passed involving proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
We advert to the basic relevant facts. This assessee’s is a company developing infrastructure as well as acting as a commission agent. It filed its return on 15.02.2015 declaring total income of Rs.13,202/-. The Assessing Officer thereafter framed regular assessment in issue in its case dated 15.11.2016 determining its taxable income at Rs.4,62,480/- after making various disallowance/additions.
Rista Fisheries & Infrastructure Ltd.
Case file suggests that the PCIT thereafter initiated the impugned revision proceedings after terming the above regular assessment as erroneous causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue since the Assessing Officer had failed to make the necessary enquiry/evidence in respect of TDS deduction on interest payment of Rs.19,90,807/- u/s 194A of the Act. Learned Authorized Representative submits that the assessee duly put its appearance in revision proceedings and sought to justify the above regular assessment on the ground that the same was neither erroneous nor any prejudice caused to interest of Revenue. The PCIT has declined the same by observing that the Assessing Officer had not conducted enquiry regarding non-deduction of TDS u/s 194A of the Act and therefore, the impugned assessment is erroneous causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue as per section 263(1) Explanation 2(c) of the Act. This leaves the assessee’s aggrieved.
Mr. Roy vehemently submits during the course of hearing that the PCIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming his revisional jurisdiction vested u/s 263 of the Act. He places on record the assessee’s income tax return acknowledgment, audit report, balance sheet, statement of P&L A/c, depreciation charged, notes of accounts regarding the impugned assessment year and submits that the Assessing Officer had duly examined the assessee’s impugned interest expenditure in view of the specific figure including interest on return on loan amounting to Rs.2225006/- and therefore, the PCIT has erred in holding that there was a failure on his part in carrying out necessary enquiries during the course of assessment. We find no reason to agree with the assessee’s foregoing arguments. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in M/s Malabar Industries Co. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and M/s GEE VEE Enterprises vs. UOI (1975) 99 ITR 279 (Del) hold that an assessment has to be both erroneous as well as prejudice to interest of the Revenue in case the assessment of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and that lack of enquiry on Assessing Officer’s part during the course of scrutiny is covered in the two specified expressions. We make it clear that the assessee has not even filed the Assessing Officer’s show-cause notice issue during scrutiny that Rista Fisheries & Infrastructure Ltd. he had conducted any such enquiry on the above stated interest or TDS deduction issue. We conclude in this factual and legal backdrop that the PCIT has rightly taken recourse to revisional jurisdiction vested u/s 263 of the Act. We therefore affirm the same. It is made clear that the assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of hearing in the consequential assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer.