9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 1264 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - Proof of lack of enquiry - HELD THAT - Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd. 1993 (4) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has explained the meaning of erroneous as an order which is not in accordance with law, or which has been passed by the Income Tax Officer without making any enquiry in undue haste. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court further explained the meaning of Prejudiced as an order can be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue if it is not in accordance with law in consequence whereof, lawful revenue due to the state has not be realized or cannot be realized. Facts mentioned elsewhere clearly show that this is not a case of lack of enquiry or assessment being framed in haste. Proper enquiries were made by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and after considering all the facts and evidences, the Assessing Officer took a view which is a plausible view. Therefore, it is not open to the ld. PCIT to direct a re-enquiry as he is of a different view. We are of the considered opinion that the assessment order dated 26.12.2018 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Erroneous and prejudicial nature of the assessment and rectification orders. 3. Adequacy of inquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer. 4. Interpretation of legal standards for invoking Section 263. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The primary issue revolves around whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) correctly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction and holding the assessment and rectification orders as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 2. Erroneous and Prejudicial Nature of the Assessment and Rectification Orders The PCIT issued a notice under Section 263, asserting that the assessment order dated 26.12.2018 was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The PCIT's notice was based on a letter from the Assessing Officer (AO) dated 06.10.2020, which proposed invoking Section 263, stating that the AO had not conducted proper inquiries to arrive at a logical conclusion. 3. Adequacy of Inquiries Conducted by the Assessing Officer The tribunal examined whether the AO had conducted adequate inquiries during the assessment proceedings. The AO had issued notices under Section 142(1) and 133(6) to various parties, including M/s. Sarvottam Securities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Upaj Leasing and Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd., seeking detailed information. The parties responded with complete details, including loan confirmations, ledger accounts, and financial statements. The tribunal found that specific queries were raised and adequately addressed, establishing that the AO had conducted proper inquiries. 4. Interpretation of Legal Standards for Invoking Section 263 The tribunal referred to several judicial precedents to interpret the legal standards for invoking Section 263. The Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. held that for Section 263 to be invoked, the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Anil Kumar and Vikas Polymer emphasized that the CIT cannot invoke Section 263 merely because of a different opinion if the AO had applied his mind to the issue. The Bombay High Court in Gabriel India Ltd. clarified that an order could not be termed erroneous unless it deviates from the law or is made without proper inquiry. The tribunal concluded that the AO had made adequate inquiries and taken a plausible view based on the facts and evidence. Therefore, the PCIT's direction for re-inquiry was not justified. The tribunal held that the assessment order dated 26.12.2018 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue's interest, making the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 invalid. Conclusion The tribunal set aside the PCIT's order dated 31.03.2021 and restored the AO's assessment order dated 26.12.2018. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the tribunal pronounced the order in the open court on 14.02.2022 in the presence of both parties' representatives.
|
