M/S M.M. BAGWAN & BROS.,VIJAYAPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELAGAVI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 211/PAN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 September 2023AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI R.S. SYAL (Vice President), SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was justified in invoking Section 263 as the AO had not examined the issues pointed out by the Pr. CIT. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) invoked Section 263 of the Act, finding that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to examine vehicle expenses, purchase promotion expenses, and TDS non-deduction. The assessee contended that the AO had verified these issues, but the Tribunal noted no such discussion in the assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether the Pr. CIT was justified in invoking Section 263 of the Act due to the AO's alleged failure to examine certain expenses and TDS issues.

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, PANAJI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri Radhesham Bhattad
For Respondent: Shri P.S. Shivshankar

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

1.

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 22-03-2018 passed u/s. 263 of the Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi for assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The assessee raised four grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the Pr. CIT justified in invoking the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act.

3. At the outset, we note that the Pr. CIT initiated 263 proceedings by issuing a notice dated 21-12-2017 finding the AO failed to examine vehicle expenses, purchase promotion expenses, non-deduction TDS and accordingly show caused the assessee why the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act should not be set aside for non-examination of the said issues in the assessment proceedings. The ld. AR drew our attention to the written submissions placed at pages 1 to 12 of the paper book. According to the ld. AR that the AO satisfied on verification of vouchers which were maintained and produced in the assessment proceedings. Likewise, other issues on purchase promotion expenses and non-deduction of TDS up to verify the details, the AO found satisfied and passed assessment order. The ld. DR drew our attention to the assessment order and submits that the AO did not examine the issues pointed by the Pr. CIT in 263 proceedings and nowhere, the AO referred or discussed the said issue in the assessment order. The ld. DR supported the order of Pr. CIT and drew our attention to paras 3 to 3.2 of the impugned order and argued that the Pr. CIT discussed the issues in detail and found no examination whatsoever at all made by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. On perusal of the assessment order dated 28-01-2016 which is part of appeal memo, we find no discussion whatsoever detailed therein by the AO in the assessment order. On an examination of the impugned order, we note that no verification accorded by the AO for the issues raised by the Pr. CIT in 263 proceedings as rightly pointed by the ld. DR, in view of the same, we find no infirmity in the order of Pr. CIT in exercising of jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act in setting aside the assessment order dated 28-01-2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee fails and are dismissed.

4.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21st September, 2023.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →