M/s Anchor Constructions, Lucknow V. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Lucknow

ITA 213/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4798 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.213/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - 2, LUCKNOW. VS M/S ANCHOR CONSTRUCTIONS, J-262, ASHIYANA COLONY, LUCKNOW. PAN;AAOFA7366H (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI ASHOK SETH, F. C. A. APPELLANT BY SHRI A. K. SINGH, CIT, D. R. RESPONDENT BY 05/01/2016 DATE OF HEARING 15/01/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT-II, LUCKNOW DATED 27/02/2015 U/S 263 OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERRED FACTS AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE IN CANCELLING THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT . 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NEIT HER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. 3. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED THE ORDER AFTER DUE ENQUIRY AND EXAMINATION OF ALL ISSUES RAISED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THUS THE ORDER O F AO WAS NOT ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 2 4. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY A CCEPTED THE LABOUR CHARGES INCURRED DURING THE YEAR ARID AL SO THE AMOUNT OF LABOUR CHARGES PAYABLE COMING FROM PAST YEARS AS THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED LABOUR CHITTHA (LABOUR REGISTER) BEFORE HIM WHICH WERE VERIFIED BY HIM ALSO. 5. LEARNED COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX HAS WRONGLY HEL D THAT NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF LABOUR CHAR GES AND LABOUR CHARGES PAYABLE. 6. THAT THE DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND SECURIT Y DEPOSITS WITH ADDRESS ETC. WERE SUBMITTED WHICH WERE VERIFIE D BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE IN HOLDING T HAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE THINGS I N MECHANICAL MANNER. 8. THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS AGAINST THE MERIT, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY LEARNED CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS AVAILAB LE ON PAGES 1 & 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON PAPER BOO K PAGE NO. 8 IS QUERY LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 30/07/201 3 IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND AS PER PARA 4 OF THIS QU ERY LETTER, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITO RS WITH COMPLETE ADDRESS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE REPLY OF THI S LETTER DATED 26/08/2013, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS AVAILABL E ON PAGES 9 & 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND IN PARA 4 OF THIS REPLY, IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT COPY OF ACCOUNT OF CREDITORS WITH COMPLETE ADDRESS IS ENCLO SED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, THE REVISIONARY P OWER INVOKED BY LEARNED CIT U/S 263 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 4. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT. 3 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE MECHANICALLY AND FAILED TO CONDUCT ANY ENQUIRY REGARDING GENUINENESS OF VARIOUS LIABILITIES. HENCE, IT IS S EEN THAT AS PER THE LEARNED CIT ALSO, IT IS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY BUT IT IS A CASE OF INADEQUATE ENQUIRY. WE ALSO FIND THAT IN HIS QUERY LETTER DATED 30 TH JULY, 2013, AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH COPY OF ACCOUNT OF ALL CREDITORS WITH COMPL ETE ADDRESS. IN REPLY TO THIS QUERY, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ALONG WITH THE REPLY LETTER DATED 26/08/2013, AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO . 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK, COPY OF ACCOUNT OF CREDITORS WITH COMPLETE ADDRESS. THIS IS BY NOW A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT IN THE CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY , CIT CAN INVOKE HIS REVISIONARY POWER U/S 263 OF THE ACT BUT IN A CASE OF INADEQUATE ENQUIRY, SUCH REVISIONARY POWER OF LEARNED CIT U/S 263 IS NOT INV OCABLE. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ALLEGATION IS FOR INADEQUATE ENQUIRY AND NOT FOR LACK OF ENQUIRY, THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT U/S 263 IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE, THEREFORE, QUA SH THE SAME. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GAROD IA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DATED:15/01/2016 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR