RIGHT TIGHT FASTNERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -11, MUMBAI

ITA 3102/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0344 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SRINIVASAN LD CIT DR
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVENDRA JAIN LD
• Keywords: Question of law; Non compliance
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 263

Judgement Text

ITA.NO.3102/MUM/2018 RIGHT TIGHT FASTNERS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM I.T.A. NO.3102/MUM/2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) RIGH T TIGHT FASTNERS PRIVATE LTD. 18-A/31, MANISH KAVERI, FOUR BUNGLOWS, ANDHERI(W), MUMBAI-400 053 VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11 ROOM NO.417 AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400 038 ! ' PAN/GIR NO. AADCR-3024-M ( !# APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : DEVENDRA JAIN, LD. AR REVENUE BY : B. SRINIVASAN, LD. CIT DR & DATE OF HEARING : 26/07/2018 '() / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/09/2018 O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. AFORESAID APPEAL BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2014-15 CONTEST THE INVOCATION OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U /S 263 BY LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-11 [PR.CIT], MUMBAI ON 1 9/03/2018 BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. IN THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, SUBMIS SIONS MADE BEFORE THE A.O. AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE PR. CIT, PROVIS IONS OF LAW & THE CASE LAW ITA.NO.3102/MUM/2018 RIGHT TIGHT FASTNERS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 2 ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED PR. CIT-11, MUMBAI, ERR ED IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S 263 & PASSING THE REVISION ORDER U/S 263. THEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED TO DECLARE THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 263 WAS NULL & VOID & THE CONSEQU ENT ORDER PASSED U/S 263 IS ALSO NULL & VOID. 2. THE LEARNED PR. CIT-11, MUMBAI, ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S 263, EVEN THOUGH THE DETAILS OF TDS ARE MADE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS DURING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 BEFORE HER. THERE FORE, IT IS PRAYED TO HOLD THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 IS NULL & VOID. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FAILED TO APPRECI ATE THAT THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO PASSING AN ORDER UNDER THE SAID SECTIO N WERE NOT SATISFIED AND HENCE THE ORDER U/S.263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IS ULTRA VIRES AND VOID. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN HOLD ING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13 OCTOBER 2016 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND HENCE ER RED IN PASSING AN ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IN RESPECT OF THE SAME. 5. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF ITS CASE AND THE LAW PREVAILING ON THE SUBJECT THE ASSESSMEN T FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AN D THE LAW BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE SAME BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS ERRONEOU S & IS BEYOND JURISDICTION AND BAD IN LAW. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT CORPORATE ASSESSEE , ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF AUTOMOBILE PARTS WAS ASSESSED U/S 143(3) ON 13/10/2016 BY LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11(1)(1), MUMBAI DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.353.52 LACS UNDER NO RMAL PROVISIONS AFTER CERTAIN ADDITIONS AS AGAINST RETUR NED INCOME OF RS.349.43 LACS E-FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28/09/2014. 3. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SUB JECTED TO EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 BY LD. PR.CIT VIDE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 02/02/2018 ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ISS UE OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS ON CERTAIN PAYMENTS AS REPORTED IN COLUMN NO . 34(A) OF TAX AUDIT REPORT REMAINED TO BE EXAMINED BY LD. AO TO CONSIDER DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA). THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE NOTICE READ AS UNDER:- ITA.NO.3102/MUM/2018 RIGHT TIGHT FASTNERS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 3 ON PERUSAL OF FORM 3CD FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR , IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE DETAILS OF DEDUCTION OR COLLECTION OF TAX REQUIRED BY THE ASSE SSEE AS PER PROVISION OF THE I.T.ACT HAS BEEN TABULATED IN COLUMN NO. 34(A) OF THE FORM NO.3 CD, WHICH REFLECTS THE AMOUNT ON WHICH TDS DEDUCTED OR COLLECTED AT LESS THAN SPECIF IED RATE AND AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTED OR COLLECTED ON THE SAME SHOWN AT NIL. THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES ON WHICH TDS NOT MADE ARE AS UNDER: SR.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT IN RS. 1 INTEREST OTHER THAN INTEREST ON SECURITIES 23,03, 308/- 2 COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE 6,71,000/- 3 RENT 4,05,000/- 4 PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR 3,74,53,255/- 5 FEES PAID FOR PROFESSIONAL 23,19,803/- 6 PAYMENT TO CONTRACTORS 6,34,64,718/- 7 COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE 6,71,000/- TOTAL 10,72,88,084/ - FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER HAS NOT DISALLOWED THE ABOVE U/S 40(A)(IA) EVEN THOUGH NO TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED ON T HE SAME AS WAS NOTICED IN FORM 3CD, WHICH RESULTED IN UNDER ASSESSMENT. ALSO, IT IS PERTINENT THAT DETAILS IN RESPECT OF TD S MADE ON VARIOUS EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND IN THE RECORD, HENCE, IN ABSENCE OF THE SAME, THESE FACTS WHETHER TDS IS MADE OR NOT ON THE ABOVE EXPENSES COULD NOT BE VERIFIED. 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. 4. THEREFORE, I, THE UNDERSIGNED, IN EXERCISE OF PO WERS CONFERRED ON ME IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, PROPOSE TO CO NSIDER THE ABOVE MATTER AND PASS SUCH ORDER AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE MAY JUSTIFY. BEFORE DOING SO, I HEREBY GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY SUCH AN ORDER S HOULD NOT BE PASSED U/S.263 SETTING ASIDE THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.10.20 16, WITH A DIRECTION TO THE AO TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT DE NOVO, AFTER CONDUCTING NECE SSARY VERIFICATION / ENQUIRIES. THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE SAME BY SUBMITTING THAT C OMPLETE DETAILS IN THIS REGARD WAS ALREADY FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ISSUE OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE [TDS] WAS DULY EXAMINED BY LD. AO FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING D ISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DATA REPORTED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS ERRONEOUS AND THE SAME CREPT INTO THE TAX AUDIT REPORT DUE TO CLERICAL ERROR. HOWEVER, LD. PR.CIT REJECTED THE SAME ON THE PREMISE THAT ALL THE ITEMS AS REPORTED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WERE NOT EXAMINED AND FURTHER MERE DENYING THE DATA / TRANSACTION REP ORTED IN OWN AUDIT ITA.NO.3102/MUM/2018 RIGHT TIGHT FASTNERS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 4 REPORT DID NOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE FROM THE REQUIR EMENT TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. FINALLY, TREATING THE QUANTUM ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE, THE LD. AO WAS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE SAME AND PASS A SPEAKING ORD ER, IN THIS REGARD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ACT ION OF LD. PR.CIT, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE IS. 4. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, SHRI DEVENDRA JAIN, PLACING RELIANCE ON SEVERAL JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, SUBMIT TED THAT ADEQUATE INQUIRIES WERE MADE BY LD. AO REGARDING THE COMPLIA NCE OF TDS PROVISIONS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE DULY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, REVISIONAL JURISDICTION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO THE DOCUMENTS PLACED IN THE PAPER-BOOK CONTAINING DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE SAME HAS BEEN CONTROVERTED BY LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE [CIT, DR], SHRI B.SRINIVASAN BY SUBMITTING THAT THE TAX AUDIT REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PRIMA FACIE, REVEAL NON COMPLIANCE OF TDS PROVISIONS AND SINCE THE SAME WAS NOT EXAMINED BY LD. AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, INVOCATION OF JURISDICTION WAS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED SINCE IT WAS THE ONLY RECOURSE AVAILABLE TO THE REV ENUE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, P ERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT S RELIED UPON BY RESPECTIVE REPRESENTATIVES. SO FAR AS THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER U/S 143(3) IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE SAME IS SILENT REGARDIN G OBSERVATIONS MADE BY LD. PR.CIT. ANOTHER UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED DATA AS NOTED BY LD. PR.CIT IS DULY REPORTED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT OF THE ITA.NO.3102/MUM/2018 RIGHT TIGHT FASTNERS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 5 ASSESSEE WHICH AS PER LD. AR, IS ERRONEOUS YET NO E FFORT, TILL DATE, HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO RECTIFY THE SAME OR DE MONSTRATE WITH CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE SAME WAS ERRONEOUS OR INCORRECT, IN ANY MANNER. 6.1 AS EVIDENT FROM DOCUMENTS ON RECORD, WE FIND TH AT THE ASSESSEE, DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, VIDE NOTICE U/S 142( 1) DATED 13/04/2016 WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE FOLLOWING DETAILS:- 14. PARTY-WISE DETAILS OF MAJOR EXPENSES SHOULD BE FURNISHED HEAD WISE IN THE FOLLOWING FORMAT. SN NAME & ADDRESS PAN DESCRIPTION OF EXPENSE AMOUNT TDS IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE, VIDE LETTER DATED 01/07/2016, FILED THE FOLLOWING DETAILS:- 5. DETAILS RELATED TO OTHER EXPENSES CLAIMED IN P & L ACCOUNT VS. ITR WITH LEDGERS OF MAJOR EXPENSES ALONG WITH TDS DEDUCTED O F ALL FOUR QUARTERS AND SAMPLE BILLS OF MAJOR BIG EXPENSES SAMPLE BILLS RELATED TO OTHER EXPENSES ARE ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE II. THE ANNEXURE AS REFERRED TO ABOVE CONTAINS THE HEAD-WISE AS WELL AS BRANCH WISE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE DU RING THE IMPUGNED AY. THE FURTHER DETAILS IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE MAJOR EXPENSES, IN THE FORMAT AS DESIRED BY LD. AO, WAS F URNISHED ALONG WITH DETAILS OF TDS DEDUCTED THEREUPON AS PLACED ON PAGE NUMBERS 11 TO 36 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE SAME, LD. AO, VIDE ANOTHER NO TICE U/S 142(1) DATED 06/09/2016, RAISED A SPECIFIC QUER Y RELATING TO THE SAME WHICH IS EXTRACTED BELOW:- 6. ON PERUSAL OF DETAILS OF PROCESSING CHARGES FURN ISHED BY YOU, IT IS SEEN THAT TDS HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED ON PAYMENT MADE TO BIMBH MECHANICAL WORK AND MAHINDRA VEHICLE MANUFACTURING OF RS.2,70,240/- AND RS.1,13,125/- RESPECTIVELY. REASONS TO SHOWCAUSE AS TO WHY THE SA ME SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S 40A(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. ITA.NO.3102/MUM/2018 RIGHT TIGHT FASTNERS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 6 7. DETAILS OF PROFESSIONAL FEES FURNISHED BY YOU IN CLUDED PROFESSIONAL FEES PAID TO CHANDRAKANT B NIKHA OF RS.60,000/- ON WHICH TDS HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED. REASONS TO SHOWCAUSE AS TO WHY THE SAME S HOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S 40A(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE RESPONSE / EXPLANATION OF THE SAME HAS BEEN FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS REPLY DATED 03/10/2016. 6.2 THE PERUSAL OF CHRONOLOGY OF ABOVE EVENTS MAKES IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT LD. AO, DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WAS CLI NCHED WITH THE ISSUE OF TDS COMPLIANCE ON EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY T HE ASSESSEE AND HAD RAISED SPECIFIC QUERIES IN THIS REGARD. THE REQ UITE DETAILS / RESPONSE / REPLY TO THE SAME WAS DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE E FROM TIME TO TIME, APPARENTLY, TO THE SATISFACTION OF LD. AO SINCE NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) HAS BEEN MADE IN THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT O RDER. 6.3 UPON PERUSAL OF ABOVE FACTUAL MATRIX, WE FIND T HAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF INQUIRY OR INADEQUATE INQUIRY WHICH WARRANT S EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 BY HIGHER AUTHORITIES. THE LD. AO, WITH DUE APPLICATION OF MIND, EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE IN THIS REGARD AND TOOK A CONSCIOUS DECISION NOT TO MAKE ANY DISAL LOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA). NOTHING ON RECORD SUGGEST THAT THE VIEW OF THE LD. AO WAS ERRONEOUS, IN ANY MANNER. THIS BEING THE CASE, THE ORDER OF LD. PR.CIT, IN INVOKING JURISDICTION U/S 263 COULD NOT BE SUSTA INED AND THE SAME, IN OUR OPINION, WAS BEREFT OF ANY MERITS. THEREFORE, W E QUASH THE SAME AND RESTORE THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER OF LD. AO. THE ABOVE CONCLUSION REACHED UPON BY US IS FURTHER FORTIFIED BY THE DECI SION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN MOIL LTD. VS. CIT [81 TAXMANN.COM 420] WHEREIN HONBLE COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- ITA.NO.3102/MUM/2018 RIGHT TIGHT FASTNERS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 7 5. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITI ES, IT APPEARS THAT BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED, A NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) OF THE ACT AND 20 QUERIES PERTAINING TO DIF FERENT HEADS WERE MADE THEREIN. THE NINTH QUERY IN THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) OF THE ACT PERTAINS TO THE EXPENDITURE FOR THE CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY . BY THE SAID QUERY, THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO GIVE A DETAILED NOTE OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ALONG WITH BIFURCATION OF THE EXPENS ES UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS. AN EXHAUSTIVE REPLY WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO T HE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) OF THE ACT. IN PARAGRAPH 8 OF THE REPLY, THE ASSESS EE GAVE THE DETAILED NOTE PERTAINING TO THE EXPENDITURE FOR THE CORPORATE SOC IAL RESPONSIBILITY UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS THAT RUNS INTO SEVERAL PAGES. THE HEADS UNDER WHICH THE EXPENSES WERE MADE TOWARDS THE CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY WE RE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED AS HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT, SPORTS, EDUCATION ETC. AND FOR EACH OF THE DIFFERENT HEADS, PARTICULARS WERE GIVEN IN RESPECT OF EVERY MINOR OR MAJOR EXPENSES. A DETAILED NOTE ON THE EXPENDITURE ON THE CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSI BILITY CLAIM WAS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH 8 WHICH RUNS INTO MORE THAN FIVE PAGES. I T IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE APPELLANT - ASSESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDER TAKING AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS A CONTROL OVER THE EXPENSES OF THE UNDERTAKING. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT DURING THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS, SIMILAR CLAIMS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS ALLOWING THE CLAIMS HAVE ATTAINED FINALITY. WE HAVE MINUTELY PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CLAIMS F OR DEDUCTIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT LEAST UNDER 20 HEADS AND QUERIES WE RE MADE IN THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPE CT OF NEARLY ALL OF THEM. WE, HOWEVER, FIND FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS DEALT WITH NEARLY NINE CLAIMS OF DEDUCTIONS. THESE CLAIMS HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THEY HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED T HEREIN BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPEARS TO HAVE DISALLOWED THOSE CLAIMS EIT HER PARTIALLY OR TOTALLY. IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM FOR THE CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILIT Y AND SOME OTHER CLAIMS THAT WERE ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS NOT MADE A SPECIFIC REFERENCE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS APPARENT F ROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXPRESSED IN DETAIL ABOUT THE CLAIMS THAT WERE DISALLOWABLE. WHERE THE CLAIMS WERE ALLOWABLE, AS WE FIND FROM TH E READING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REFERRED TO TH OSE CLAIMS. THE CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY CLAIM IS ONE OF THEM. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) OF THE ACT THAT A SPECIFIC QUERY IN REGARD TO T HE CLAIM PERTAINING TO THE CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY WAS MADE AND A DETAILED NOTE AFTER GIVING BIFURCATION OF THE EXPENSES UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS WAS SOUGHT. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RESPONSE IN RESPECT OF THIS QUERY WHICH IS EXHAUSTIVE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS, AS ARE SOUGHT UNDER QUERY NO.9 IN THE NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) OF THE ACT. IF THAT IS SO, THE JUDGMENTS, REPORTED IN FINE JEWELLERY (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA) AND NIRAV MODI (SUPRA) AND ON WHICH THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED GREAT RELIANCE WOULD COME INTO PLAY. IT IS HELD IN THE JUDGMENTS REFERRED TO HEREIN ABOVE BY RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF IDE A CELLULAR LTD. (SUPRA) THAT IF A QUERY IS RAISED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A ND THE QUERY IS RESPONDED TO BY THE ASSESSEE, THE MERE FACT THAT THE QUERY IS NO T DEALT WITH IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD NOT LEAD TO A CONCLUSION THAT NO MIND H AS BEEN APPLIED TO IT. IN THE CASE OF FINE JEWELLERY (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA) THIS COURT F OUND THAT FROM THE NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CA SE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK A ITA.NO.3102/MUM/2018 RIGHT TIGHT FASTNERS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 8 POSSIBLE VIEW AND THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT A CASE WHER E THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT COULD HAVE BEEN RESORTED TO. CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE, WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW. IN THE CASE OF NIRAV MODI (SUPRA) THIS COURT HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN THAT CASE IN CANCELLING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD RESPONDED TO THE QUERY MADE TO IT DURING THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DID NOT MENTION THE SAME, IT WOULD NOT LEAD TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT APP LIED HIS MIND TO THE CASE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHEREVER THE CLAIMS WERE D ISALLOWABLE THEY HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THERE IS NO DISCUSSION OR REFERENCE IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIMS THAT WERE ALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN IN THE JUDGMENTS IN THE CASE OF FINE JEWELLERY (INDIA) LTD . (SUPRA) AND NIRAV MODI (SUPRA) IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO HOLD THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT S PECIFICALLY MENTIONED ABOUT THE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF THE CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBI LITY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQU IRY IN RESPECT OF THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE CLAIM OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPO NSIBILITY. IN OUR VIEW, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOKED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE QUERY UNDER SECTI ON 142 (1) OF THE ACT WAS VERY GENERAL IN NATURE AND THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO VERY GENERAL IN NATURE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE QUERY PERTAINING TO CORPOR ATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY WAS EXHAUSTIVELY ANSWERED AND THE APPELLANT - ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED THE DATA PERTAINING TO THE EXPENDITURE UNDER EACH HEAD OF TH E CLAIM IN RESPECT OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, IN DETAIL. THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE REPLY/EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELABORATE ENOUGH TO DECIDE WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE CLAIM WAS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIO NS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT EXPECTED TO RAISE MORE QUE RIES, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED ABOUT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CLAIM ON THE B ASIS OF THE MATERIAL AND THE DETAILS SUPPLIED. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, WE ANSWER THE QUESTION OF LAW IN THE NEGATIVE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. VIEWED FROM ANY ANGLE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IN OUR O PINION, COULD NOT FIND VALIDITY IN THE EYES OF LAW. 7. THE APPEAL STAND ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR ABOVE O RDER. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MAN OJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *& MUMBAI; DATED 12.09.2018: SR.PS:-THIRUMALESH ITA.NO.3102/MUM/2018 RIGHT TIGHT FASTNERS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 9 ! COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. + ,$ - -) *& / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. , ./0 & GUARD FILE ' / BY ORDER, # '$% (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) *& / ITAT, MUMBAI