HASUMATIBEN JAGDISHBHAI PATEL, ,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

�नधा�रती क� ओर से /Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA राज�व क� ओर से /Revenue by Shri Ashish Pophare, CIT-DR अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal instituted on 08.05.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 22.11.2023 उ�घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of 22.11.2023 pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax-Valsad [for short to as ‘Ld. PCIT’] passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.03.2023 for assessment year (AY) 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. CIT has erred in passing the order u/s 263, although the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

(A.Y 18-19) Hasumatiben J Patel 2.On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. CIT has erred inholding that loan processing charges of Rs.3,68,630/- are capital in nature and required to be disallowed and thereby erred in setting aside the assessment with the direction to frame the assessment de novo after inquiring into the issue of disallowance of loan processing charges.

4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Further vide application dated 04.10.2023, the assessee has raised following additional grounds of appeal:

 On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned PCIT has erred in raising other issues in the order u/s 263 dated 31.03.2023 without referring them in the show cause notice issued u/s 263 on 10.03.2023.

3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual engaged in the trading of acid and chemicals, filed her return of income for assessment year 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs.2.06. crores. The case was selected for “limited scrutiny” on the issue of unsecured loan and details of assets and liabilities. The Assessing Officer after serving statutory notices under section 143(2) issued on 28.09.2019 and further issued notice under section 142(1) for calling for details on the reasons of selection of scrutiny. The assessee filed her reply on 28.02.2020, along with detailed explanation and documents in support thereof. The Assessing Officer on receipt of such reply accepted the returned of income filed by the assessee. Subsequently, the assessment was revised by Ld. PCIT by exercising his jurisdiction (A.Y 18-19) Hasumatiben J Patel under section 263 of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2023. Before passing the assessment order, Ld. PCIT issued show cause notice to the assessee vide notice dated 10.03.2023. In the show cause notice, Assessing Officer noted that on verification of record, he noted that assessee has debited an amount of Rs.3.68 lakhs on loan processing fees, which is in the nature of capital expenditure. The Assessing Officer should have disallowed the same, however, the same has not been done. The assessee was asked to file her explanation within ten days of receipt of show cause notice. The assessee filed her reply dated 15.03.2023. The contents of show cause notice and reply of assessee is recorded by Ld. PCIT in para-3 and 4 of his order. In the reply, assessee submitted that her case was selected for “limited scrutiny” on two issues (i) unsecured loan and (ii) details of assets and liabilities. On furnishing complete details along with documentary evidence in support thereof, the assessment was completed by accepting her return of income. The assessee further explained that issue of loan processing fees, is no way directly or indirectly connected with any of the aforesaid “limited scrutiny” issue, which cannot be considered as a mistake apparent on record and no addition is called by disallowing the legitimate expenses of Rs.3.68 lakh on account of r loan processing fees during the year under consideration. The assessee requested to drop revisional proceedings. The assessee in her without prejudice submission, submitted that even otherwise, no disallowance is called for the (A.Y 18-19) Hasumatiben J Patel reasons that assessee carrying business of trading of acid & chemicals, wherein majority of goods are purchased from Limited Companies and sales thereof is made to various persons. The assessee engaged in trading activities and no manufacturing activities was carried out by assessee. The assessee neither owned any factory building or plant & machinery in earlier year nor purchased any factory building or plant & machinery in the year under consideration for her business activities. Such fact can be verified from the audited annual accounts, copy of which was furnished as majority of purchase from limited companies. The payments for purchase acid and chemical had to be made an advance to the said companies, wherein the sales were made on credit basis giving credit of minimum 90 days to customers. Thus, funds were required for working capital in the business. For business purposes, assessee availed overdrafts facilities from HDFC Bank in earlier year and also availed overdrafts facilities from Axis Bank during the year under consideration for day-to-day requirements. The assessee incurred expense of Rs.3,68,630/- for cash credit renewal charges, franking charges (stamp duty), mortgage of assets, loan processing fees for new sanction of overdraft facility, which is purely in the nature of revenue and cannot be capitalized. The assessee furnished copy of ledger account with complete details of such expenses. The assessee reiterated that such expenses are purely revenue in nature (A.Y 18-19) Hasumatiben J Patel and cannot be capitalized. The assessee made prayer to drop the proceedings under section 263.

is emanating from the order passed by Ld. PCIT itself.

7. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue supported the order of Ld. PCIT. The Ld.CIT-DR for the revenue submits that Assessing Officer has passed a very cryptic order and accepted the return of income filed by assessee, in writing two sentences only “that notice under section 142(1) were issued calling for details on the reasons for selection of scrutiny” or that assessee has filed her reply. The assessment order is silent on the issue of scrutiny. The Ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that Ld. PCIT while passing final order has given direction to the Assessing Officer to pass de novo assessment order after given full opportunity to assessee.

8. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and have gone through the order of lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on various case law relied by Ld. AR for the assessee. We find that assessment order was selected for “limited scrutiny” on the issue of unsecured loan and details of assets and liabilities. We find that Assessing Officer on seeking certain details on the issue accepted the return of income filed by assessee though the Ld. PCIT revised the assessment order by taking view that expenses of Rs.3,68,630/- on account of loan processing fees was in the nature of capital expenditure. On such issue, the Ld. PCIT issued show cause notice. We find that in reply to the show cause notice issued by Ld.PCIT, the assessee explained complete facts in details and submitted that such (A.Y 18-19) Hasumatiben J Patel expenses were incurred / debited on account of availing credit facilities (overdraft facilities) and paid franking charges, loan processing fees for new sanction of overdrafts facility. The assessee clearly explained that overdrafts facilities were availed by smooth running of business. The overdrafts facilities were availed for day-to- day working capital requirement. The assessee also explained that she was engaged in trading activities of acid and chemicals and such overdrafts were availed for making advance payments to the manufacturer / suppliers for such goods. We find that to support such contention, the assessee furnished complete details of her financial statement in the form of audited accounts. We find that such reply was not considered by Ld. PCIT, which was coupled with evidence, however, while passing the order under section 263, he identified some other issues which was related with repayment loan and interest to NRI, which was not subject-matter of notice issued under section 263 of the Act. Admittedly, no notice under section 263 or opportunity on such new issue was given by Ld. PCIT. Thus, we are of the considered view that issues, which was not the subject-matter of the show cause notice or neither any opportunity of being heard was granted to assessee on such new issue, the same cannot be made basis for revising the assessment order.

9. So far as primary issue identified in the show cause notice under section 263, we find that once the assessment was selected for “limited scrutiny” and the Assessing Officer examined such issue, it is (A.Y 18-19) Hasumatiben J Patel not open for the ld PCIT to exercise his jurisdictional power under section 263 on the issues which were not covered in the “limited scrutiny”. Therefore, action initiated by Ld. PCIT for revising such issue was not justified in nature. Even on independent examination of issue we find that the assessee incurred expanses of Rs. 3.68 lakhs for availing overdraft facilities, which was otherwise in the nature of revenue expense and was not to be capitalised, therefore, in allowing/ accepting such expenses, the assessment order is not be branded as erroneous. Therefore, the twin conditions for revising the assessment order will not be otherwise available to the ld PCIT. In view of the aforesaid discussion and observation, order passed by Ld. PCIT under section 263 is quashed. This ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed.