2019 (6) TMI 609 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - AO passed the order u/s 147 without passing speaking order on objections filed by assessee - as per CIT assessment order is void - can CIT exercise power u/s 263 against such order - HELD THAT - In the present set of facts where the Commissioner himself has given a finding that the re-assessment proceedings have not been correctly carried out against the assessee and the AO has failed to fulfill his obligation, then under such circumstances where, he has also held that since, the copy of reasons recorded for re-opening of the assessment were not furnished to assessee till date of completion of assessment, the order of the AO is void , then revisionary jurisdiction cannot be exercised against such order. When the said order is void and did not stand in law, it cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue by the Commissioner. Consequently, the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act in the present case, is not justified and is bad in law. We cancel the same. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Exercise of jurisdiction by Commissioner under section 263 of the Act.

Analysis:
The appeal concerns the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income Tax Act against an order passed under section 147. The original assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, but during a search on another entity, incriminating documents were found related to the assessee, leading to reopening of assessment under section 147. The Assessing Officer did not furnish reasons for reopening the assessment separately, and objections raised by the assessee were not addressed in a speaking order. The Commissioner held the assessment order void due to non-compliance with the procedure mandated by legal precedents, directing a re-framing of the assessment order.

The Commissioner's intervention under section 263 was challenged by the assessee, arguing that since the original assessment order was void, the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to act. Citing legal precedents, the assessee contended that when the assessment order is void and does not exist in law, the Commissioner cannot exercise revisionary jurisdiction under section 263. The Calcutta High Court and the Pune Tribunal decisions were referred to in support of this argument.

The Tribunal analyzed the situation and concurred with the assessee's position. It held that when an assessment order is void and did not stand in law, the Commissioner's exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 is not justified. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that in such cases, the assessment order cannot be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal canceled the Commissioner's intervention under section 263, allowing the appeal of the assessee.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the procedural irregularities in the assessment process, the legal standards required for such proceedings, and the consequences of failing to adhere to those standards, leading to the Tribunal's decision to cancel the Commissioner's intervention under section 263.