2016 (3) TMI 1231 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - non recording or wrong recording of certain transactions - Held that - Some of the observations made by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax with regard to wrong noting and not noting of certain entries may be correct, as we see that even the assessee has admitted to that. However, these mistakes do not given the learned Commissioner of Income Tax jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, there are other mechanisms provided under the Act to correct these anomalies. Further, in this context, we also observe that if all these corrections are done, whether the tax imposable on the assessee will increase or decrease, this fact also remains under the clouds. In such circumstances, how can the learned Commissioner of Income Tax infer that these mistakes lead to the order being prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, it may result into being prejudicial to the interest of assessee also. Therefore, we see that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax s act of assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act is not as per law. The issue of recording, non-recording, under recording of entries etc. are all inter-related and the Assessing Officer as well as CIT (Appeals) have already applied their mind to the same, how can the wrong recording or under recording can be considered an issue independent of non-recording, we do not understand. Otherwise also, as we have held elsewhere in this order, there are other mechanisms under the Act to correct these kind of anomalies, if any. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Assessment completed under section 153A read with section 143(3) after thorough investigation.
3. Recording and verification of entries in the books of accounts.
4. Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under section 263.
5. Merging of the Assessing Officer's order with the order of the CIT (Appeals).
6. Typographical and clerical errors in the assessment order.
7. Directions for de-novo assessment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Invocation of proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Principal CIT issued a show cause notice under section 263, indicating that the assessment order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The CIT pointed out that certain transactions recorded in a seized ledger were not considered in the assessment order, leading to an incorrect computation of peak investment and profit on unaccounted sales.

2. Assessment completed under section 153A read with section 143(3) after thorough investigation:
The assessee argued that the assessment was completed after thorough investigation and application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO had considered all unaccounted entries and calculated the peak investment accordingly. The CIT (Appeals) had already adjudicated on the matter, providing partial relief to the assessee.

3. Recording and verification of entries in the books of accounts:
The assessee contended that all entries confronted by the Principal CIT were duly recorded in the books of accounts and verified by the AO. Any typographical errors did not affect the assessed income. The CIT, however, held that the AO did not properly examine these entries, leading to an erroneous order.

4. Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under section 263:
The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Principal CIT under section 263, arguing that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Principal CIT's assumption of jurisdiction was based on disagreements with the AO's conclusions, which is not a valid ground for invoking section 263.

5. Merging of the Assessing Officer's order with the order of the CIT (Appeals):
The assessee argued that the AO's order had merged with the order of the CIT (Appeals), who had already adjudicated on the matter. Therefore, the Principal CIT did not have the jurisdiction to revise the order under section 263. The Tribunal agreed, stating that issues adjudicated by the CIT (Appeals) cannot be revised by the Principal CIT under section 263.

6. Typographical and clerical errors in the assessment order:
The Principal CIT noted certain arithmetical errors in the assessment order. However, the Tribunal held that these errors did not justify the invocation of section 263, as there are other mechanisms under the Act to correct such anomalies.

7. Directions for de-novo assessment:
The Principal CIT directed the AO to make a fresh assessment de-novo after conducting further enquiries. The Tribunal found this direction improper, stating that if the Principal CIT believed the order was erroneous, he should have provided a categorical finding after conducting necessary enquiries himself.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Principal CIT, allowing the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 was not as per law, as the AO had applied his mind and made a judicious decision based on the material and explanations provided. The Tribunal also noted that the Principal CIT cannot impose his own view under section 263 and that issues adjudicated by the CIT (Appeals) cannot be revised by the Principal CIT. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order of the Principal CIT was set aside.

← Previous Next →