2016 (7) TMI 1496 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - rectification of mistake u/s 154 - Held that - The proceedings u/s 154 were dropped on account of a reply to the notice u/s 154. AO in this respect is placed. Therefore, from the above facts it is apparent that the Revenue Authorities first tried to reopen the case u/s 154, which on a replay filed by assessee were dropped and thereafter, the learned CIT took up the same issue by assuming jurisdiction u/s 263. Moreover, we find that the proceedings u/s 263 has been initiated in view of the audit objection raised by Income Tax officer (Audit) which is not permissible as per the settled position of law. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of CIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act based on audit objection.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT, Bathinda, under section 263 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The appellant argued that the CIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 263 as the Assessing Officer had already examined all aspects during assessment proceedings. The appellant highlighted that the proceedings under section 154 were dropped after an attempt to make additions, and the same issue was then taken up by the CIT under section 263. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support their argument that jurisdiction cannot be assumed solely based on audit objections.

2. The audit objection raised by the Income Tax Officer (Audit) pertained to interest paid on borrowed capital and interest-free advances made to a debtor. The CIT issued a show cause notice based on the audit objection, questioning the assessment order's correctness. It was observed that the Revenue Authorities first attempted to rectify the issue under section 154 but dropped the proceedings after the assessee's reply. Subsequently, the CIT initiated proceedings under section 263 based on the same audit objection, leading to a challenge by the appellant. The Tribunal referred to legal judgments emphasizing the necessity of an independent application of mind by the CIT before assuming jurisdiction under section 263, especially when based on audit objections.

3. The Tribunal analyzed previous decisions, including the case of Jaswinder Singh, where the order passed by the CIT under section 263 was quashed due to jurisdictional issues arising from audit objections. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT's order under section 263 in the present case lacked legal tenability as it solely relied on audit objections without independent assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the CIT's order under section 263.

4. The Tribunal's decision aligned with established legal principles that revisionary powers under section 263 must involve a thorough examination of records and an unbiased application of mind by the CIT. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of independent decision-making by the CIT and highlighted that audit objections alone cannot form the basis for assuming jurisdiction under section 263. The judgment underscored the need for a valid and legally sound basis for invoking section 263, ensuring fairness and adherence to procedural norms in tax assessments.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the CIT's order under section 263, emphasizing the necessity of an independent and legally valid basis for exercising revisionary powers under the Income Tax Act.