M/s. Weikfield Products Corporation LLP, Pune V. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax -4, Pune

MA 13/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Weikfield Products Corporation LLP, which filed a miscellaneous application against the dismissal of its main appeal concerning the assessment year 2014-2015. The original appeal was dismissed by the tribunal, which upheld the revision of the assessment order by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The revision was based on the Assessing Officer's inadequate inquiry into the bad debts claimed by the assessee. The tribunal's decision was influenced by precedents that establish the necessity of a thorough examination by the Assessing Officer, which was found lacking in this case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137418 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2023
• Other Referred Cases: TRF Ltd vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC), Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC), CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 263; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.No.13/PUN./2023 Arising out of I.T.A.No.760/PUN./2019 - Assessment Year 2014-2015 M/s. Weikfield Products Corporation LLP, 3A, 3 rd Floor, Vascon Weikfield Chambers, Shri Satpal Malhotra Marg, Nagar Road, Pune – 411 014 PAN AABFW2289C vs. The Pr. CIT-4, Pune. (Applicant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sarvesh Khandelwal For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of Hearing : 02.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 02.06.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s miscellaneous application M.A.No.13/PUN./2023 filed u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). seeks to recall/rectify the tribunal’s order dated 21.07.2022 dismissing it’s main appeal ITA.No.760/PUN./2019 thereby upholding the learned PCIT’s order dated 26.03.2019 passed u/s.263 of the Act. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Mr. Khandelwal invited our attention to the tribunal’s detailed discussion in issue reading as under : 2 M.A.No.13/PUN./2023 “3. Learned authorized representative vehemently reiterated the assessee’s pleadings as well as stand that the Assessing Officer had indeed carried out all the details enquiries during the course of scrutiny regarding its bad debts claim. We find no merit since the case records speak otherwise. First of all comes the assessee’s corresponding ledger account regarding M/s. Anand Rathi Sundry Debtors at page 69, wherein there is no actual write off forming a mandatory condition as per TRF Ltd vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC). This is indeed coupled with the fact that the Revenue has successfully invited our attention to the assessee’s paper book page(s) 61 onwards wherein the corresponding contract notes; both purchases and sales, are dated 25.06.2013 not involving actual delivery of the commodity(ies) concerned. Mr. Meena next took us to page 71 in the assessee’s paper book wherein there are again some discrepancies found regarding the contract notes and purchase details which had nowhere been examined specifically by the Assessing Officer during the course of scrutiny. Faced with this situation, we reject assessee’s arguments and conclude that the PCIT herein has rightly exercised his section 263 revision jurisdiction on account of Assessing Officer’s failure in carrying out his details enquiries in light of Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act. We further quote Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. 3 M.A.No.13/PUN./2023 CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) has settled the law long back that such a failure on the Assessing Officer’s part renders an assessment both erroneous as well as causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue; simultaneously. The assessee fails in its instant sole substantive grievance, therefore.” 2.1. Mr. Khandelwal next vehemently argued that our order has nowhere considered the corresponding complete ledger sufficiently indicating their actual written off claim at the assessee’s behest u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. He fails to dispute the clinching fact that Assessing Officer had nowhere carried out any enquiry on the instant issue which is followed by its failure in filing of the complete documentary evidence before us at the time of earlier hearing. Faced with the situation, we conclude in light of hon’ble apex court in the case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC) and CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC); that our impugned order does not suffer from any mistake even much less an apparent one so as to invoke sec.254(2) rectification jurisdiction. Rejected accordingly. 3. This assessee’s miscellaneous application is dismissed in above terms. 4 M.A.No.13/PUN./2023 Order pronounced in the open Court on 02.06.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 02 nd June, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent - Pr. CIT-4, Room No.322, 3 rd Floor, Bodhi Tower, 548/2B, Salisbury Park, Gultekdi, Pune. PIN - 400 037. 3. The Addl. CIT, Range-7, Pune. 4. D.R. ITAT, Pune “B” Bench, Pune 5. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.