2021 (8) TMI 1396 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of Revision u/s 263 - CIT noted difference of sale consideration and value determined by Stamp Valuation Authority in respect of 12 such persons and that the AO failed to verify and applying the correct law - PCIT set aside the assessment order and directed to verify the sale deed for the year under consideration and pass the assessment order afresh by giving adequate opportunity to the assessee - assessee argued No fair and proper opportunity was given by CIT - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that ld. PCIT issued show-cause notice u/s 263 dated 13/03/2021 for fixing the date of hearing on 31/03/2021. PCIT passed the order on 31/03/2021 itself. We find that assessee filed copy of reply dated 31/03/2021 before the ld. PCIT. We find that ld. PCIT has not recorded the contents of reply filed by the assessee. We instead of going on the merit and demerit of the issues identified by ld. PCIT for revision find that the ld. PCIT passed the order in a hasty manner and without giving fair and proper opportunity. Therefore we deem it appropriate to restore the case back to the file of ld. PCIT to decide the issues identified by him afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeals against orders of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2017-18; legality of orders passed without hearing; invocation of sec. 263 for fresh enquiry; branding assessment order as erroneous; fair opportunity of hearing; restoration of cases to Principal Commissioner for proper consideration.

Analysis:

1. The appeals by the assessee were directed against orders of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for the assessment years 2014-15 to 2017-18. Despite common facts, variations in figures led to separate orders. The grounds of appeal challenged the legality of the orders passed without providing a hearing, invoking sec. 263 for fresh enquiry, and branding the assessment order as erroneous. The appeals were clubbed and decided by a common order, treating the appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 as the lead case.

2. The assessee, a proprietor of Mouli Investment, faced a search resulting in a notice under section 153A for filing income tax return. The assessment under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) was completed without any income addition. However, the Principal Commissioner revised the assessment order under sec. 263, noting discrepancies in real estate transactions. The Principal Commissioner set aside the assessment order, directing a fresh enquiry. The assessee challenged this decision before the Tribunal, citing lack of proper opportunity for hearing.

3. During the proceedings, the Authorized Representative for the assessee argued that the Principal Commissioner did not provide a fair opportunity for hearing before passing the order under sec. 263. The reply submitted by the assessee was allegedly not considered in the decision-making process. The Departmental Representative for the revenue did not object to remitting the matter back to the Principal Commissioner for a fresh decision after granting a proper hearing to the assessee.

4. The Tribunal observed that the Principal Commissioner had indeed issued a show-cause notice but passed the order hastily without adequately considering the assessee's reply. The Tribunal found that the Principal Commissioner did not record the contents of the reply filed by the assessee, indicating a lack of due process. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the case back to the Principal Commissioner for a reevaluation of the identified issues after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5. In light of the above, the Tribunal decided to allow the appeals for all the years in question for statistical purposes. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of fair procedures and proper consideration of submissions in such matters. The orders were pronounced on 13-08-2021, with the results posted on the notice board.