M/S N.L.ENGINEERS PVT LTD,MOHALI vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 781/CHANDI/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 November 2018AY 2012-135 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was aware of the payments being made in earlier years and that the registration was delayed. The Tribunal found no escapement of revenue or under-assessment in the current year, as any issue with the land purchase would relate to earlier years. Similarly, regarding profit fall, the Tribunal noted the AO had examined the profit and the assessee's explanations for accounting changes were plausible.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment order was cancelled under Section 263 by the Pr. CIT due to alleged non-enquiry by the AO regarding the registration of a sale deed for fixed assets and the fall in gross/net profit. The assessee had explained that payments for land were made in earlier years, possession was taken later, and registration was delayed due to legal issues. The fall in profit was attributed to excise duty accounting and deferred tax liability.

What were the issues?

Whether the Pr. CIT was justified in cancelling the assessment order under Section 263 for non-enquiry into the registration of a sale deed and the fall in profit, when the assessee provided explanations and evidence of prior year payments and accounting adjustments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR , AM

For Appellant: Shri. Parikshit Aggarwal
For Respondent: Shri. Jagjivan Kumar Garg
Hearing: 30/08/2018Pronounced: 16/11/2018

आदेश/Order PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M:

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of

the Ld. PCIT-2, Chandigarh dt. 07/03/2017.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of

manufacturing of sub-station Structure Transmission Towers, Microwave Towers,

Cable Tray and Trading of Iron & Steel. During the year under consideration the

assessee has shown income under the heads “Profit and Gains from Business or

Profession”.

3.

The first ground relates to addition of Land and Fixed Assets of Rs. 10.01

Crores which the assessee claims as not a new item and infact paid in the

preceding years and only due to registration of sale deed during the year in

question the item was classified as fixed assets on transferring from the head of

advance.

4.

The Ld. Pr. CIT vide order passed under section 263 of Income Tax

Act,1961 directed that the assessment order under section 143(3) dt. 15/11/2014

for the A.Y. 2012-13 be cancelled owing to non enquiry of Registration of the

sale deed pertaining to the fixed assets brought into the books during the year in

question. The complete part of the order under section 263 relevant to the issue

is as under:

“ 3.1.1 In its reply, the assessee submitted that real possession of the land was taken during F.Y. 2008-09 but the title deed was registered during F.Y. 2011-12 and the same was classified as fixed asset. A copy of the deed has also been submitted now by the assessee during the course of proceeding under section 263 of the Act. It is thus evident that the AO did not obtain the copy of sale deed from the assessee for verification / examination regarding source of investment, business nexus etc. during the course of assessment proceeding. Thus, the issue remains unexamined and unverified on the part of the AO.”

5.

During the proceedings under section 263 the assessee submitted the

complete details pertaining to acquisition of the land which are as under:

This is w.r.t. Letter No. PCIT-2/CHD/Judl./263/39/2016-17/7145 dated 16/02/2017 from office of your good self. In this regards we wish to submit as under:- 1. As far as the addition in land and building during A.Y. 2012-13 concerned we wish to submit that the land was mainly acquired during F.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09 by giving payment to the party. The real possession of the land was taken during F.Y. 2008-09. However, the company from which the land was purchased was in the process of liquidation with Delhi Court. Due to which there were certain legal issues in transferring the title of the land to N.L. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Since there was no legal title with N.L. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. WE have been showing the payments made as advance. During F.Y. 2011-12 when the title deed was registered in the Company’s name the same was classified as fixed asset and we made a payment of Rs. 2,06,38,500/- only for which the company had enough funds. The land was purchased for business use and has been put to use since the date of purchase. The raw material and other stores are stored in such places. The place has also been registered under vat as a place of business.

6.

Before us, the Ld. AR reiterated the submissions taken before the Ld. PCIT

while the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. PCIT.

7.

We have heard Ld. Representative of both the parties.

8.

From the order of the Pr. CIT as well as the submissions of the assessee

before the Pr.CIT the following facts emerged.

i. The payment for the land was made during the F.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09. ii. The payments made were duly reflected under the head “Advances” for the A.Y. 2008-09 onwards. iii. The possession was taken during the current year. iv. The Registration expenses only were claimed during the current year. v. It was brought before the PCIT about the process of liquidation before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the reasons for non registration. vi. The Pr. CIT held that the Assessing Officer did not obtain the copy of the sale deed and hence the assessment was directed to be annulled. vii. The Pr. CIT held that Assessing Officer did not enquire the business nature and the source of investment. From the above we observe that while passing the order under section 263

the Ld. Pr. CIT is quite aware of the fact that the amounts were received in the

earlier years and duly reflected in the balance sheet over the years. After

obtaining the copy of the Registration deed the PCIT would be in a well defined

position to know that no escapement of Revenue or under assessment or any

prejudice or error could be attributable to the year in question. Having

examined the facts the PCIT could have well dropped the proceedings at that

juncture. No purpose would be served by nullifying the assessment of the current

year even though on record it is proved that the amount is received in the

earlier years. Even if it is proved to be bogus or otherwise the addition would be

called only in the earlier years. No action would be feasible in the current year.

Hence keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are

of the opinion that the action of the Ld. PCIT annulling the assessment cannot

be upheld.

9.

The second issue relates to annulling the assessment on the grounds that

the A.O. was not examined the reasons behind fall in the gross profit and net

profit of the assessee. The complete part of the order under section 263 relevant

to the issue is as under:

“ 3.2 Regarding decrease in the gross profit and net profit though increase in gross turnover as compared to the previous year: 3.2.1 In its reply, the assessee submitted that increase in gross turnover is due to inclusion of excise duty paid amounting to Rs. 3,38,68,746/-. Further, for increase in sale there has been corresponding increase in relevant cost. The assessee computed GP rate on net sale as 12.70% and that of on gross sale as 11.55%. The assessee also submitted that during F.Y. 2011-12 there was not much movement in WIP as compared to FY 2010-11. In reply to cause of decrease in net profit the assessee submitted that it was mainly on account of provision of deferred tax liability amounting to Rs. 19,43,711/- which was made for the first time otherwise the net profit would be 29,27,087/-. 3.2.2 The facts and figures submitted by the assessee in respect of reason behind decrease in gross profit and net profit have been considered. However, on perusal of assessment record, it is found that the AO has neither raised these issues nor examined the justification now being offered by the assessee for all in gross profit and net profit rates during the assessment proceedings. Thus, the issue issues remain unexamined and unverified on the part of the AO.” 10. Before the Assessing Officer the assessee submitted the G.P rate and N.P rate for the year under assessment and for the last three A.Ys which is as under:

Assessment Year Gross Turnover %age GP %age NP

2012-13 37.41 12.70% 0.26%

2011-12 30.58 14.22% 1.21%

2010-11 36.84 13.49% 1.90%

11.

The assessee has filed the computation of GP/NP Ratio on net basis as per the financial statement which are as under:

Assessment Turnover Purchases Gross GP Indirect Net Profit NP Rate Year (In Lacs) and Profit (In Rate% Expenses before Tax % Direct Lacs) excl. as per expenses Income Financial (in Lacs) Tax(In Statements Lacs) 2012-13 3,740.94 3,212.87 528.07 14.12 482.66 45.41 1.21 2011-12 3,057.61 2,666.92 390.69 12.78 353.15 37.54 1.23 2010-11 3,683.72 3,202.55 481.17 13.06 410.86 70.31 1.91 2009-10 4,612.49 4,032.81 579.68 12.57 483.41 96.27 2.09

12.

From the above facts on record, we find that the increase in turnover on

net sales is of Rs. 6.65 Crores after excluding excise duty and further we find that

deferred tax liability provision of Rs. 19.43 Lacs has been made for the first time

by the assessee. The Assessing Officer cannot be expected to make any further

roving enquiries when the PCIT during the proceeding under section 263 could

not conduct any verification or investigation to determine that the GP and NP

returned by the assessee are not correct. Hence keeping in view the entire facts

on record, keeping in view the fact that examination of the profit was done by

the Assessing Officer, the explanation of the assessee before the PCIT that there

were modifications in accounting of excise duty and also provisions of deferred

tax liability and in keeping in view there was no considerable change in the G.P

/N.P in the current year, we are of the opinion that the action of the Ld. PCIT

annulling the assessment cannot be upheld.

13.

As a result, the order under section 263 passed by the Ld. PCIT is hereby

quashed in its entirety.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

Sd/- Sd/- �दवा �संह डा. बी.आर.आर. कुमार, (DIVA SINGH) (Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR) �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member AG Date: 16/11/2018 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH Guard File

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →