2016 (12) TMI 609 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Held that - In pursuance of S 263, when the CIT passed an order directing the AO to redo the assessment in accordance with law and before coming to any conclusion to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee etc, such an order could not have been contended as detrimental to the interest of the assessee, as it was always open to it to justify its claim as held in ase of CIT V Infosys Technologies 2012 (1) TMI 76 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's examination of the rental advance issue.
3. Validity of the Commissioner of Income Tax's (CIT) directive to reassess.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act:
The primary issue was whether the CIT had the jurisdiction to revise the assessment order under Section 263. The assessee argued that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, as the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted a proper inquiry and accepted the declared income as NIL. The CIT, however, found that the AO failed to examine the rental advance issue adequately, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The CIT's jurisdiction under Section 263 was thus invoked to correct this oversight.

2. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's Examination of the Rental Advance Issue:
The CIT observed that the AO did not properly scrutinize the rental agreement, which showed a lease advance of ?10,00,000/- paid to one of the trust's authors. The CIT noted that the AO failed to question the excess advance payment and its non-refundable nature, which violated Section 13(3) provisions. The assessee contended that the AO had verified all documents, including the rental agreement, and that the advance was justified given the premises' non-residential use. However, the CIT found that the AO's lack of detailed examination on this point led to an erroneous assessment.

3. Validity of the Commissioner of Income Tax's Directive to Reassess:
The CIT directed the AO to reassess the case, taking into account the rental advance issue. The assessee argued that this amounted to a "fishing and roving" inquiry without substantial evidence. The CIT's directive was based on the finding that the AO had not adequately addressed the rental agreement's terms, specifically the non-refundable advance. The CIT emphasized that subsequent agreements presented by the assessee could not retroactively justify the advance for the assessment year 2010-11. The reassessment was deemed necessary to rectify the AO's oversight and ensure compliance with legal provisions.

Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the CIT's decision, agreeing that the AO's failure to examine the rental advance issue rendered the original assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interests. The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, affirming the need for reassessment to address the identified discrepancies. The judgment emphasized that Section 263's invocation was appropriate given the AO's inadequate inquiry, and the reassessment directive was justified to ensure proper application of the law.