2018 (11) TMI 1874 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C - Assessment u/s 153A of the Act after obtaining approval of Additional CIT under section 153D - HELD THAT - The assessment in the present case has been completed by the Assessing Officer by passing order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act after taking the approval of JCIT, Central Range, Nashik and following the ratio laid down in Rasiklal M. Dhariwal (HUF) Vs. CIT 2017 (1) TMI 260 - ITAT PUNE we hold that exercise of revisionary powers by the Commissioner is both incorrect and invalid in law. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee are thus, allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against orders passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act.
- Validity of the Commissioner's revisionary powers in the given circumstances.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income-tax Act

The appeals filed by the assessee were against separate orders of the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune, dated 30.03.2016 for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, and therefore, the Commissioner's invocation of section 263 was challenged. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed with the prior approval of the Additional CIT, Central Range-2, Pune. Referring to a similar case, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner's exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 against an order passed with the approval of the Additional CIT was not sustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner lacked the power to revise the order under section 263 in such circumstances.

Issue 2: Validity of the Commissioner's revisionary powers

The Tribunal cited various judicial decisions and observed that when the assessment order is passed with the approval of the Additional CIT as required by law, the Commissioner's interference under section 263 is not justified. It referenced cases where the Tribunal and High Courts had held that assessment orders approved by the Additional CIT under section 153D of the Act cannot be revised under section 263. Relying on these precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's revisionary powers could not be exercised in cases where the assessment order was passed with the necessary approval from the Additional CIT. The Tribunal reiterated that the Commissioner's jurisdiction under section 263 was invalid in such instances and consequently canceled the orders passed under section 263 for the assessment years in question.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed both appeals of the assessee, emphasizing that the Commissioner's exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 against orders passed after obtaining approval from the Additional CIT was invalid and not sustainable in law. The Tribunal's decision was based on established legal principles and precedents, ensuring that the assessment process adhered to the statutory requirements and procedural fairness.