SHEKHAR S. DADARKAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 24(3), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 641/MUM/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar CIT-24, Bandra Kurla Prop. M/s S.D. Construction Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Geetanjali CHS Ltd., Plot Mumbai-400050. No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. PAN No. ADAPD8694G Appellant Respondent ITA No. 5255/MUM/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar DCIT-24 Bandra Kurla Prop. M/s S.D. Construction Vs. (E), Mumbai-400050. Geetanjali CHS Ltd., Plot No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. PAN No. ADAPD8694G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Sunil A. Desai, AR Revenue by : Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 31 /05/2018 Date of pronouncement: 23/08/2018

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar 2 ITA No. 641/Mum/2013, 5255/Mum/2016

ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the ‘Act’) of the Commissioner of Income Tax-24 [in short ‘CIT’] and the order u/s 251 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-42, Mumbai [in short CIT’(A)’]). As common issues are involved, we are proceeding to dispose them off through a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 641/MUM/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 2. The grounds of appeal read as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT erred in invoking provisions of section 263 a) treating the order passed by Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) as erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue; b) particularly when the order passed by the AO is after verification of books and various documents required by him and produced during the course of assessment proceedings. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT erred in directing the AO to make re-verification in para 1,2,4 and 5 of the order u/s 263. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT erred in directing the AO to make addition in para 3 of the order u/s 263. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, on going through the assessment record, the CIT found that the AO had issued notice u/s 133(6) to various parties for verification, but no reply was received

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar 3 ITA No. 641/Mum/2013, 5255/Mum/2016

from them and the AO finalized the assessment order without verifying the genuineness of purchases from the following parties:

Sr. No. Name of the party Amt. of purchase in Rs. as per the assessee

Total 78,68,473

The CIT further found that the assessee had claimed various expenses and services of Rs.77,55,361/- and Rs.2,09,547/- paid to Sally Décor and on these expenses the assessee was liable to make TDS as per the provisions of the Act. Also the assessee failed to make TDS on the payment of conducting charges amounting to Rs.22,50,000/- paid to “Prabodhan Goregaon” because payment was made to a charitable trust. Further, the penalty u/s 271B has been short levied by Rs.11,375/-. Also the assessee has debited expenses on loan of Rs.1,36,62,412/- but not

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar 4 ITA No. 641/Mum/2013, 5255/Mum/2016

charged any interest on loan given to various parties which needs to be verified. In view of the above facts, the CIT came to a finding that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the CIT set aside the order of the AO and directed him to pass a de novo order, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that as regards notices u/s 133(6), where no reply was received, the appellant had furnished before the AO, during the course of assessment proceedings, vide letter dated 09.11.2010, details of party wise purchases, their address, total purchase amount and PAN numbers. It is stated that the notices were not unserved, which is an important factor. The Ld. counsel submits that before the CIT, the appellant had submitted various documents to prove the genuineness of purchases. The documents were (i) ledger account, (ii) copies of bills, (iii) banks statements evidencing payments, (iv) return of income of five parties, (v) confirmation of four parties and (vi) party’s AO’s notice u/s 133(6) in the case of one party. Thus it is stated that substantial evidence were produced before the CIT to show the genuineness of the parties. It is stated that the AO had selected various parties for issuing notice u/s 133(6) out of which some parties have not replied. As regards deduction of TDS and payment thereon, it is stated that the appellant had submitted vide letter dated 12.11.2010 the party wise

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar 5 ITA No. 641/Mum/2013, 5255/Mum/2016

and quarter wise details of deduction and payment of TDS before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. As regards the payment of caretaking charges paid to public charitable trust, Prabodhan Goregaon amounting to Rs.22,50,000/-, it is stated that the appellant had submitted before the AO vide letter dated 06.12.2010, the copy of the agreement with the trust and the fact that no TDS has been made. Since the income of the trust is not chargeable to tax, no TDS is required to be made. In this context, reliance was placed on Circular No. 4 dated 16.07.2002 of CBDT about non-deduction of tax in case of entities whose income is exempt u/s 10 of the Act. As regards the levy of penalty u/s 271B, it is submitted that the impugned notice is in respect of order u/s 143(3) and not order u/s 271B. It is stated that the appellate did not file the tax audit report before the due date of filing of the return of income. The penalty is leviable @ 0.5% of the turnover which comes to Rs.68,258/- which is correctly levied by the AO and hence there is no short levy of penalty. As regards loans and advances, it is submitted that the appellant, during the course of assessment proceedings, had submitted details vide letter dated 09.09.2010 and the AO after verification has accepted the same. The major amount of loan and advance was towards investment by SD construction into appellant’s proprietary concerns such as S D Health and Beauty, S D Hospitality, S D Hospitality – Ozon, S D Hospitality – Snehdeep etc.

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar 6 ITA No. 641/Mum/2013, 5255/Mum/2016

Thus it is stated by the Ld. counsel that all the five points as referred to above, have been examined by the AO during the assessment proceedings. The Ld. counsel files a Paper Book containing (i) Original return of income, (ii) Revised return of income, (iii) Balance sheet of S D Construction, (iv) Balance sheet of S D Hospitality, (v) Balance sheet of S D Health & Beauty, (vi) Assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 06.12.2010, (vii) Submission dated 27.11.2012, (viii) Submission dated 09.11.2010, (ix) Submission dated 12.11.2010, (x) Submission dated 06.12.2010, (xi) CBDT Circular No. 4 dated 16.07.2002, (xii) Order u/s 271B dated 21.06.2011 and (xiii) Submission dated 09.09.2010. The Ld. counsel also placed reliance on the decision in Cheil India Private Limited v. ITO (ITA No. 6183/Del/2014) for AY 2007-08 by ITAT ‘B’ Bench New Delhi; M/s Anish Ahmad & Sons v. CIT(A) (2008) 297 ITR 441 (SC); CIT v. M/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Private Limited (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom); CIT v. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC); Moil Limited v. CIT (2017) 396 ITR 244 (Bom); Pr. CIT v. Ramchandra Naidu [Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2016] decided on July 24, 2017 by Bombay High Court; Idea Cellular Limited v. DCIT (2008) 301 ITR 407 (Bom); CIT v. Gabriel India Limited (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom); CIT v. Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom); Refex Industries Limited v. DCIT (ITA No. 972/Mds/2014) by ITAT ‘C’ Bench Chennai; Jeewanlal v. Addl. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 407 (Cal); M/s Superfine Agro Industries v. ITO [ITA No. 203 (Asr)/ 2014] by ITAT Amritsar; J. Thomas & Co. Private Limited v. JCIT [ITA No. 570/Kol/2012] by ITAT ‘A’ Bench Kolkata; Vinay Pratap

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar 7 ITA No. 641/Mum/2013, 5255/Mum/2016

Thacker v. CIT [ITA No. 2939/Mum/2012] by ITAT ‘F’ Bench Mumbai and CIT v. M/s Sunbean Auto Limited (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del). Thus is stated that the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the decision in Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC), Pr. CIT-7 v. Bikram Singh [2017] 85 taxmann.com 104 (Del.), CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., [2017] 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bom.), Arvee International v. Addl. CIT [2006] 101 ITD 495 (Mum) and Horizon Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT [ITA No. 1593/Mum/2013] by “H” Bench, Mumbai and Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (GA No. 509 of 2016) by Calcutta High Court. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. We begin with the case-laws relied on by the Ld. counsel of the assessee. In Cheil India Private Limited (supra), the appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the CIT(A) and it is held at para 13 therein: “Thus, we find that the disallowance has been made and upheld by the authorities below merely on the basis that the Star India Pvt. Ltd. did not bother to respond the notices issued under sec. 133(6) of the Act by the Assessing Officer to them. The authorities below have not bothered to examine the veracity of the documents filed by the assessee in support of the genuineness of the claimed payment made to Star India Pvt. Ltd. It is a well established position of law that genuineness of the claim cannot be denied merely because the party to whom payment claimed to have been made is

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar 8 ITA No. 641/Mum/2013, 5255/Mum/2016

not responding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer especially when the assessee claimant had filed sufficient documents in support of the claimed payment. There may be several reasons for a party for non-appearance or non-compliance before the Assessing Officer, for which the assessee cannot be penalized.” In M/s Anish Ahmad & Sons (supra), it is held “that the assessee could not be held responsible for non-appearance of those five traders to whom the summons were issued by the assessing authority, as they were residing outside the state of U.P. For non-appearance of those traders, no adverse inference ought to have been drawn by the authorities below and the appellant-assessee has led satisfactory evidence that its business is only that of commission agent and not ‘a trader’ dealing in the goods”. In M/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Private Limited (supra), it is held “ that the Tribunal records that the Books of Accounts of the respondent- assessee have not been rejected. Similarly, the sales have not been doubted and it is an admitted position that substantial amount of sales have been made to the Government Department i.e. Defence Research and Development Laboratory, Hyderabad. Further, there were confirmation letters filed by the suppliers, copies of invoices for purchases as well as copies of bank statement all of which indicate that the purchases were in fact made. In our view, merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent-assessee.”

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar 9 ITA No. 641/Mum/2013, 5255/Mum/2016

In Max India Limited (supra), while dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue, it is held;- “Firstly, it is not in dispute that when the order of the Commissioner was passed there were two views on the word ‘profits’ in that section. The problem with Section 80HHC is that it has been amended eleven times. Different views existed on the day when the Commissioner passed the above order. Moreover, the mechanics of the section have become so complicated over the years that two views were inherently possible. Therefore, subsequent amendment in 2005 even though retrospective will not attract the provision of Section 263 particularly when as stated above we have to take into account the position of law as it stood on the date when the Commissioner passed the order dated March 5,1997, in purported exercise of his powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.” In Moil Limited (supra), it is held “that 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 data pertaining to the expenditure under each head of the claim in respect of Corporate Social Responsibility, in detail. The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the reply/explanation of the assessee was not elaborate enough to decide whether the expenditure claim was admissible under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer is not expected

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar 10 ITA No. 641/Mum/2013, 5255/Mum/2016

to raise more queries, if the Assessing Officer is satisfied about the admissibility of claim on the basis of the material and the details supplied.” In Ramchandra Naidu (supra), it is held that when an Assessing Officer has proceeded in a particular manner and he has followed one of the permissible processes in law which has resulted in loss of revenue, it cannot be said to be prejudiced to the revenue. In Idea Cellular Limited (supra), it is held that once all the material was before the AO and he chose not to deal with several contentions raised by the petitioner in his final assessment order, it cannot be said that he had not applied his mind when all material was placed by the petitioner before him. In Gabriel India Limited (supra), it is held : “The ITO in this case had made enquiries in regard to the nature of the expenditure incurred by the assessee. The assessee had given detailed explanation in that regard by a letter in writing. All these are part of the record of the case, Evidently, the claim was allowed by the ITO on being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. Such decision of the ITO cannot be held to be ‘erroneous’ simply because in his order he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. Moreover, in the instant case, the Commissioner himself, even after initiating proceeding for revision and hearing the assessee, could not say that the allowance of the claim of the assessee was erroneous and that the expenditure was not revenue expenditure but an expenditure of capital nature. He simply asked the ITO to re-examine the matter. That, is not permissible. Further inquiry and/or fresh determination

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar 11 ITA No. 641/Mum/2013, 5255/Mum/2016

can be directed by the Commissioner only after coming to the conclusion that the earlier finding of the ITO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Without doing so, he does not get the power to set aside the assessment. In the instant case, the Commissioner did so and it is for that reason that the Tribunal did not approve his action and set aside his order. There is no any infirmity in the above conclusion of the Tribunal.” In Nirav Modi (supra), it is held “that the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer on the basis of the documents produced is not shown to be erroneous in the absence of making a further enquiry. It is made clear that our above observations should not be inferred to mean that it is open to the Assessing Officer to enquire into the source of source for the purpose of present facts. This is a case where a view has been taken by the Assessing Officer on enquiry. Even if this view, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Income-tax is not correct, it would not permit him to exercise power under section 263 of the Act. In fact, the apex court in Amitabh Bachchan (supra) has observed that there can be no doubt that where the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view, interference under section 263 of the Act, is not permissible.” In Refex Industries Limited (supra), it is held that the Commissioner of Income Tax, without examining the records and proper application has invoked the provisions of section 263 in disallowing the advertisement expenditure claimed by the assessee. In Jeewanlal (supra), it is held “that where the original assessment orders as rectified was the effective and operative order, the same was the subject-matter of appeal before the AAC and the AAC having passed

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar 12 ITA No. 641/Mum/2013, 5255/Mum/2016

the order thereafter, that was the only effective order and the original order had merged in that order, therefore, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to rectify the order passed by the AAC, accordingly, the notice issued u/s 263 by the Commissioner could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed.” In M/s Superfine Agro Industries (supra), it is held that the AO has examined all the points raised by the CIT and therefore, the action of the CIT u/s 263 cannot be termed as justified so long as the AO has examined from each and every angle and has taken a plausible view. In J. Thomas & Co. Private Limited (supra), it is held that unless the Commissioner records reasons for coming to the conclusion as to why he thinks order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, he cannot assume jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. In Vinay Pratap Thacker (supra), it is held that the CIT could not have invoked jurisdiction u/s 263 without his own independent application of mind; on otherwise debatable issues and by merely disagreeing on the view taken by the AO. In M/s Sunbean Auto Limited (supra), it is held that if there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders u/s 263 of the Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter and it is only in cases of “lack of inquiry” that such a course of action would be open. 6.1 Now we turn to the case-laws relied on by the Ld. DR. In Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar 13 ITA No. 641/Mum/2013, 5255/Mum/2016

dismissed the SLP against the High Court’s ruling that where assessee with a small amount of authorized share capital, raised huge sum on account of premium, exercise of revisionary powers by Commissioner u/s 263 of the Act, opining that this could be a case of money laundering was justified. In Bikram Singh (supra), it is held that where AO made addition to assessee’s income u/s 68 in respect of loan taken from various parties, since assessee failed to prove that any of those creditors had financial strength to lend such huge sums of money to the assessee, that too without any collateral security, without interest and without a loan agreement, impugned addition deserved to be confirmed. In Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (supra), it is held that where AO allowed claim of deduction u/s 80HHC without examining said claim with reference to unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance as referred to in sections 32 and 32A respectively, Commissioner was justified in invoking revision u/s 263. In Arvee International (supra), it is held that the orders passed on an incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law or without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind or without making requisite inquiries would satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of section 263.

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar 14 ITA No. 641/Mum/2013, 5255/Mum/2016

In Horizon Investment Co. Ltd. (supra), it is held that a case of lack, nay, absence of the inquiry by the AO would be a valid ground for revision u/s 263 of the Act. In Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble High Court found the order of the AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6.2 Against the above backdrop of the case-laws cited by both the sides, let us examine the facts of the instant case. As regards non-verification of purchases where notices u/s 133(6) were issued by the AO, we find that the assessee had filed during the course of assessment proceedings the ledger account, copies of bills, bank statements evidencing payments of all the parties. It had also filed return of income in respect of 5 parties. Also confirmation of four parties were filed by the assessee before the AO. The AO has mentioned at para 2 of his assessment order dated 6th December 2012 that “in order to verify purchases/expenses/loans, notices u/s 133(6) of the IT Act were issued in few cases and details collected have been placed on record.” As substantial evidence was filed by the assessee before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, we set aside the order u/s 263 passed by the CIT in respect of non-verification of purchases where notices where issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. Also we set aside the order of the CIT on short levy of penalty u/s 271B. However, having examined the assessment order dated 06.12.2010 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) along with relevant records, we

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar 15 ITA No. 641/Mum/2013, 5255/Mum/2016

find that the AO has not made any inquiry in respect of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) ; non-deduction of tax on payment ‘Prabodhan Goregaon’ and the applicability or otherwise of disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii). In Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd v. CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC), the assessee-company entered into an agreement for sale of estate of rubber plantation. The agreement provided, inter alia, for payment of the consideration in installments as scheduled therein. However, the purchaser could not adhere to the Schedules and on his request the parties agreed to the extension of time for payment of the installments on condition of vendee paying compensation/damages for loss of agricultural income and other liabilities. Accordingly, the assessee- company passed a resolution also to that effect and the purchaser paid the said amount. In the return filed by it, the amount was noted as compensation and damages for loss of agricultural income. The Assessing Officer accepted the same and endorsed nil assessment for that year. Exercising his jurisdiction under section 263, the Commissioner held that the said amount was unconnected with any agricultural operation activity and was liable to be taxed under the head 'Income from other sources'. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal. On reference, the High Court also favoured the department. On appeal by the assessee, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held :- “A bare reading of section 263(1) makes it clear that the pre-requisite to exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that the order of the ITO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar 16 ITA No. 641/Mum/2013, 5255/Mum/2016

revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If one of them is absent - if the order of the ITO is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the revenue - recourse cannot be had to section 263(1). There can be no doubt that the provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer; it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning, it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The scheme of the Act is to levy and collect tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this task is entrusted to the revenue. If due to an erroneous order of the ITO, the revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when an ITO adopts one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. It has been held by the Supreme

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar 17 ITA No. 641/Mum/2013, 5255/Mum/2016

Court that where a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In the instant case, the Commissioner noted that the ITO passed the order of nil assessment without application of mind. Indeed, the High Court recorded the finding that the ITO failed to apply his mind to the case in all perspective and the order passed by him was erroneous. It appeared that the resolution passed by the board of the appellant-company was not placed before the Assessing Officer. Thus, there was no material to support the claim of the appellant that the said amount represented compensation for loss of agricultural income. He accepted the entry in the statement of the account filed by the appellant in the absence of any supporting material and without making any inquiry. On these facts the conclusion that the order of the ITO was erroneous was irresistible. Therefore, the High Court had rightly held that the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263(1) was justified. It was not shown at any stage of the proceedings that the amount in question was fixed or quantified as loss of agricultural income and, admittedly, it was not so found by the Tribunal. The further question whether it would be agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1A) did not arise for consideration. It was evident from the order of the High Court that the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the appellant stopped agricultural operation in November 1982 and the receipt under consideration did not relate to any agricultural operation carried on by the appellant, were not questioned before it. Though the High Court was not correct in holding that the amount was paid for breach of contract as indeed it was paid in modification/relaxation of the terms of the contract, it was to be held that the

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar 18 ITA No. 641/Mum/2013, 5255/Mum/2016

High Court was justified in concluding that the said amount was a taxable receipt under the head 'Income from other sources'.” Thus, where Assessing Officer had accepted entry in statement of account filed by assessee, in absence of any supporting material without making any enquiry, exercise of jurisdiction by Commissioner under section 263(1) was justified. In the case of M/s Sunbean Auto Ltd. (supra) relied on by the Ld. counsel, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has clearly held that in cases of “lack of inquiry”, a course of action u/s 263 would be open. From the aforesaid enunciation of law in Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd, M/s Sunbean Auto Ltd., it is quite luculent that in the instant case, the CIT has rightly passed order u/s 263 in case of contravention of provisions of section 40(a)(ia); non-deduction of tax on payment ‘Prabodhan Goregaon’ and proportionate disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) and we uphold the same. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. ITA No. 5255/MUM/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 8. The ground of appeal reads as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT erred in declining to decide the matter of disallowance of Rs.22,50,000/- being care taking charges paid to public charitable trust without deducting tax at source. 9. As regards the caretaking charges paid to public charitable trust, Prabodhan Goregaon amounting to Rs.22,50,000/-, it is stated by the Ld.

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar 19 ITA No. 641/Mum/2013, 5255/Mum/2016

counsel that the appellant had submitted before the AO vide letter dated 06.12.2010, the copy of the agreement with the trust and the fact that no TDS has been made. Since the income of the trust is not chargeable to tax, no TDS is required to be made. In this context, reliance is placed on Circular No. 4 dated 16.07.2002 of CBDT about non-deduction of tax in case of entities whose income is exempt u/s 10 of the Act. In our considered view, the taxability of income or exemption u/s 11 and 12 is subject to various conditions and subject to assessment of income by the AO of the concerned assessment year 2008-09. These facts require verification at the level of the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO to make a de novo order as per the provisions of the Act, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We direct the assessee to file the relevant documents/evidence before the AO. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. To sum up, ITA No. 641/Mum/2013 is partly allowed, whereas ITA No. 5255/Mum/2016 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court 23/08/2018. Sd/- Sd/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (N.K. PRADHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 23/08/2018 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to :

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar 20 ITA No. 641/Mum/2013, 5255/Mum/2016