C.I.T vs. LEISURE WEAR EXPORTS LTD

ITA No.1165/2007 Page 1 of 17

REPORATBLE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

ITA No.1165/2007

Date of Hearing: 26.07.2010 Decision of Decision: 14.09.2010

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi-II …..Appellant

through: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal,

Advocate

VERSUS

Leisure Wear Exports Limited

…..Respondent

Through: Mr.Ajay Vohra with Ms.Kavita Jha, Ms.Akansha Aggarwal and Mr.Amit Sachdeva

Advocates

CORAM :-

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

A.K. SIKRI, J.

ITA No.1165/2007 Page 2 of 17

orders dated 21.3.2006 passed under Section 263 of the Income-Tax Act (in short „the Act‟) set aside the aforesaid assessment order of the Assessing Officer describing the same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue with direction to the AO to conduct fresh assessment after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟) in which the assessee has succeeded as the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act has been set aside by the Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 28.2.2007. The order of the Tribunal is the subject-matter of the present appeal preferred under Section 260-A of the Act by the Commissioner of Income-Tax. 2. One of the issues on which the Commissioner exercised his revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Act, pertains to the claim of deduction by the assessee under Section 80HHC of the Act. The assessee had claimed a deduction under this provision amounting to `32,25,486/-. However, in spite of various opportunities given by the AO the assessee did not furnish the particulars/documents and took the plea that it had lost the books of accounts. The required information was not given. The AO disallowed the entire claim of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. The Commissioner in his orders passed under Section 263 of the Act opined that non-supply of the information was deliberate non-compliance on the part of the assessee and therefore, the assessment should have been completed under Section 144 of the Act and not under Section 143(3) of

ITA No.1165/2007 Page 3 of 17

the Act. The Commissioner also recorded in his order that the AO had not raised queries on under noted issues:- a) As per the papers on record, the assessee has claimed that there are finished goods in the closing stock to the tune of Rs.5.28 crores. Considering the facts that the total turnover of the assessee was only Rs.6.13 crores, it was necessary to obtain the details of the closing stock, but no details were called for from the assessee;

b) The assessee has shown insurance claim receivable amounting to Rs.1.21 crores but no details have been furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has also not made any inquires in respect of this issue, from the insurance company which would be having the details of the claim;

c) The assessee has shown M/s Meghna Overseas as a Sundry Debtors to the extent of Rs.6.99 crores. It appears that export have been made to this firm, but no details are on record, which would details the export sales made. It is pertinent to point out that the requirements of section 80 HHC (4) is as follows:

“(4) The deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be admission unless the assessee furnishes in the prescribed form, alongwith the return of income, the report of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, certifying that the deduction has been correctly claimed in accordance with the provisions of this section.

and as there is such a large balance outstanding, and in view of the fact that no certificate u/s 80 HHC has been filed from which it could be deduced that such huge exports have been made, it was incumbent on the Assessing Officer to make enquiries from the Directorate of Foreign Trade, but no such enquiries have been made.

d) The assessee has shown income at Rs.1.61 crores as exchange variation and this has been export/sales of crores. It is pertinent to note that in the immediate previous year no such gain was shown. Therefore, this is a point which needed examination by the AO.”

ITA No.1165/2007 Page 4 of 17

ITA No.1165/2007 Page 5 of 17

AO did not make any third party inquiry in so far as the export business of the assessee was concerned, that is regarding its purchase of stock, sundry debtors on account of export sales etc. With regard to income of ` 1.61 crores on account of difference of rate of foreign exchange on the date of booking the export sales vis-à-vis date of realization of export proceeds the Tribunal held that the view that there was no occasion for doubting the income offered by the assessee only because of the reason that in the immediately preceding year the assessee was not in receipt of any such income. With regard to making additions in respect of the amount of insurance claim, loss of goods/loss in transit, the Tribunal observed that by mere filing of a claim with the insurance company, there does not accrue any income in favour of the assessee as the assessee had not claimed any right to receive such income. More so, when neither the claim was accepted nor any assurance given by the insurance company for making payment on account of such loss. Therefore, by mere filing of a claim no income had accrued, which was taxable. 5. In this factual backdrop, present appeal was admitted on 26.7.2010 on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law and on merits by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”

ITA No.1165/2007 Page 6 of 17

Act are concerned, legal position has been sufficiently crystallised by various pronouncements of the apex court. It goes without saying that pre-requisite to the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction under this provision by the Commissioner is that the order of the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Two conditions are to be satisfied, namely, (i) the order of the AO sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) the error committed by the AO in the order is prejudicial to the Revenue. Both these conditions are to be satisfied simultaneously and the connotation of both these expressions was explained by the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (supra) in the following manner:- “The phrase “prejudicial to the interest 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 interest of the Revenue. For example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of Revenue; or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer 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 Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. It has been held by this court that where as 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. Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC).

In the instant case, the Commissioner noted that the Income-tax Officer passed the order of nil assessment without application of mind. Indeed, the High Court recorded the finding that the Income-tax

ITA No.1165/2007 Page 7 of 17

Officer failed to apply his mind to the case in all perspective and the order passed by him was erroneous. If appears that the resolution passed by the board of the appellate-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 Income-tax Officer was erroneous is irresistible. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court has rightly held that the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Commissioner under Section 263(1) was justified.”

At the same time, as held in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (supra) where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, that cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It has to be shown that the order of the AO was not in

ITA No.1165/2007 Page 8 of 17

accordance with law, to term it as erroneous. It is also the principle of law, now well accepted, that an order passed by the AO cannot be set aside for making roving inquiry without pointing out any error in his order. The Commissioner has to specifically demonstrate that the order of the AO is erroneous.

The power of revision is not meant to be exercised for the purpose of directing the AO to hold another investigation without describing as to how the order of the AO is erroneous. From this it also follows that where the assessment order has been passed by the AO after taking into account the assessee‟s submissions and documents furnished by him and no material whatsoever has been brought on record by the Commissioner which showed that there was any discrepancy or falsity in evidences furnished by the assessee, the order of the AO cannot be set aside for making deep inquiry only on the presumption and assumption that something new may come out.

For making a valid order under Section 263 it is essential that the Commissioner has to record an express finding to the effect that order passed by the AO is erroneous which has caused loss to the Revenue. Furthermore, where acting in accordance with law the AO frames certain assessment order, same cannot be branded as erroneous simply because according to the Commissioner, the order should be written more elaborately. All these principles are highlighted in the judgments noted hereinafter.

ITA No.1165/2007 Page 9 of 17

The reason is obvious. The position and function of the Income-tax Officer is very different from that of a civil court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be accepted by a civil court in the absence of any rebuttal. The civil court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the basis of the pleading and evidence which comes before it. The Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further inquiry. It is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an inquiry. The meaning to be given to the word “erroneous” in section 263 emerges out of this context. It is because it is incumbent on the Income-tax Officer to further investigate the facts stated in the return when circumstances would make such an inquiry prudent that the word “erroneous” in section 263 includes the failure to make such an inquiry. The order becomes erroneous because such an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct.”

ITA No.1165/2007 Page 10 of 17

“Now, even on this question, we find that there is nothing in section 263(1) to show that before passing the final order under that section, the Commissioner must necessarily and in all cases record final conclusions above the points in controversy before him. As already noted by us above, we would have expected him to record final conclusions, which he thought proper if he was to settle the assessment finally but since he has not settled the assessment finally, and has preferred to direct the Income-tax Officer to make an order for fresh assessment, it was proper that he did not express any final conclusions and recorded only prima facie conclusions at which he had arrived with reference to the facts of the case. Here it should be noted that, as the assessment was to be freshly made by the Income-tax officer, the only proper course for the Commissioner was not to express any final opinion as regards the controversial points.”

ITA No.1165/2007 Page 11 of 17

ITA No.1165/2007 Page 12 of 17

the Commissioner that the order sought to be revised is not prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In that event, the Commissioner would have no jurisdiction to take any further action. He would be competent to take action only if he rejects the plea of the assessee. It thus becomes necessary for the Commissioner to examine the merits of the objection raised by the assessee. He cannot delegate that power to the Income-tax Officer by setting aside the assessment order and directing him to make a fresh assessment after taking into consideration the objection of the assessee.

Now, in the instant case, the assessee claimed that a sum of rupees one lakh was not taxable. The Commissioner should have examined that plea on merits. He could take the action that he did only if he rejected the plea of the assessee. It must not be forgotten that under section 33B the Commissioner can himself modify or enhance the assessment and that he can only do if he considers and decides on merits the objection raised by the assessee. We are, therefore, of opinion that without going into the merits of the claim of the assessee it was not possible for the Commissioner to say that the order of the Income-tax Officer had caused any prejudice to the interests of the revenue and, as such, he was not competent to set aside the assessment order and remand the matter to the Income-tax Officer.”

ITA No.1165/2007 Page 13 of 17

premise, though it is observed that there was no application of mind on the part of the AO and the AO has not recorded any reasons to justify the omission to consider the said facts, the Commissioner does not take the said order to its logical conclusion which was the prime duty of the Commissioner in order to justify exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act. There is not even a whisper that the order is erroneous. Even if we infer that non-consideration of the issues pointed out by the Commissioner would amount to an erroneous order, it is not stated as to how this order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The penultimate paragraphs of the orders, at best, contain the observations that the AO was satisfied with making flimsy additions which were deleted by the CIT(A). This is stated in the following terms:- “7. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer was satisfied with making a flimsy addition disallowing the claim of Rs.17,38,106/- debited under the head, “selling and distributing expenses”, and after further holding that the deduction under section 80HHC of Rs.32,25,486/- was unwarranted. These additions were not sustained at the appellate stage by the CIT (Appeals), who accepted the plea of the assessee “The Director being out of the country and the matter having not been properly attended to at the earlier stage as per the requisition is highly regretted.”

ITA No.1165/2007 Page 14 of 17

involved were ignored and a weak order was passed. There is not a whisper as to how this order was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 14. That apart, we find that the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the observation of the Commissioner about not making proper inquiries in respect of the said four issues are also justified and without blemish. 15. First comment of the Commissioner was in respect of finished goods in the closing stock. The Commissioner found that these were to the tune of `5.28 crores. According to the Commissioner, when the total turnover of the assessee was `6.13 crores, the AO should have satisfied himself by calling for more details as to how there was closing stock of such a magnitude of ` 5.28 crores. Thus, the Commissioner has not doubted the statement of finished goods in the closing stock furnished by the assessee. He has only remarked that there should have been a deeper probe by calling for more details. This is neither here nor there, when we keep in view the ingredients of Section 263 of the Act. 16. In so far as the insurance claim is concerned, the Commissioner observed that the assessee had shown receivable on this account to the tune of `1.21 crores but no details had been furnished. The AO had also not made any inquiries. In the detailed discussion on this aspect the Tribunal has observed that insurance clam was lodged for the goods lost in transit. The assessee at that time had merely filed a claim with the insurance company. This claim had not been approved as the insurance company had neither accepted the same nor given any assurance for making payment.

ITA No.1165/2007 Page 15 of 17

Therefore, no income had “accrued” which could be taxed. The Tribunal rightly held that ordinarily the income is said to have accrued to a person when he acquires the right to income and this should be enforceable right, though actual quantification or receipt may follow in due course. The mere claim to income without any enforceable right cannot be regarded as an accrued income for the purpose of Income-Tax Act. The Tribunal referred to the following judgments in support:- i) In CIT Vs. Finance (P) Ltd. 124 ITR 619(P&H High Court), held as under:

“Income-tax is levied on income whether the accounts are maintained on mercantile system or on cash basis. If income does not result at all, there cannot be levy of tax. Even if an entry of hypothetical income is made in the books of accounts, where the income does not result at all as there is neither accrual nor receipt of income, no tax can be levied. Even in mercantile system of accountancy an assessee could forge the whole or part of a debt, which was irrecoverable, and the same could not be added to the income of the assessee”.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) 225 ITR 706, held that “income-tax is a levy on income. No doubt, the Income-Tax Act takes into account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted, viz., the accrual of the income or its receipt; but the substance of the matter is the income. If the income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even though in book keeping, an entry is made about a hypothetical income, which does not materialize”. At page 748 and 749, the Supreme Court further observed as under:

“Even though the assessee company was following the mercantile system of accounting and had made entries in the books regarding enhanced charges for the supply made to the consumers, no real income had accrued to the assessee company in respect of those enhanced charges. The Tribunal had rightly held that the claim at the increased rates as made by the assessee company on the basis of which necessary entries were made,

ITA No.1165/2007 Page 16 of 17

represented only hypothetical Income, and the amounts in question brought to tax by the Income-Tax Officer did not represent income which had really accrued to the assessee company during the relevant previous year.”

ITA No.1165/2007 Page 17 of 17

assessee on this account as claim under Section 80 HHC was fully disallowed by the AO. We state at the cost of repetition that it is not at all observed as to how the order of the AO on this account was erroneous and further as to how it was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 19. We, thus, are of the opinion that order of the Commissioner was rightly set aside by the Tribunal. As a result, we answer the question in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and dismiss the appeal. (A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE

(REVA KHETRAPAL) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 14, 2010. „hp‟