2017 (11) TMI 1684 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - non-existence of twin conditions - an order which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. - Held that - ITAT is correct in observed that the verification done by the AO is also to be treated as proper unless some specific instruction or prescription of a particular section of the Act has not been carried by the AO or else the AO has not conducted enquiry as demanded by law. In our considered opinion this is not such a case. The twin conditions of Section 263 as discussed above in detail are not found to coexist. - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Tribunal's decision on the notice issued by CIT(A) under section 263.
2. Tribunal's decision on the twin conditions under section 263.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the Tribunal's decision regarding the notice issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer (AO) alone cannot propose his own order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for revision by the CIT. The Tribunal highlighted that the power of revision lies with the Commissioner, who must independently assess if an order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The Tribunal cited relevant cases to support its stance, emphasizing that the AO's proposal for revision is not a recognized procedure under the law. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order based on this reasoning.

2. The second issue pertains to the interpretation of the twin conditions under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal concluded that in the case at hand, the AO had conducted proper verification during the reopening of the assessment. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had adequately explained the relevant entries and details, indicating a satisfactory level of verification by the AO. The Tribunal opined that unless specific legal requirements were not met or if the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries as mandated by law, the conditions under section 263 were not met. As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the twin conditions under section 263 were not present in this instance.

In summary, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, agreeing with its analysis on both issues raised in the appeal. The Court concurred with the Tribunal's interpretation of the legal provisions under section 263, ultimately dismissing the appeal and ruling in favor of the assessee against the department.