2019 (8) TMI 459 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - order under Section 143(3) of the Act which was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue - HELD THAT - If the object of the notice was one and the matter was treated for a different purpose in the ultimate order, that may not be the appropriate exercise of the jurisdiction.In the light of a possible view taken on the facts as they presented themselves in such regard, the order of the tribunal in respect of the first of the four heads does not call for any interference. The tribunal found that the Commissioner had not even indicated in the showcause notice that adequate enquiries were not carried out. The tribunal found that the assessing officer had conducted an enquiry regarding the addition of fixed assets. The tribunal referred to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act and the reply of the assessee. The tribunal reasoned that the order passed by the assessing officer in such circumstances could neither be held to be erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In such regard, the tribunal referred to a judgment of the Allahabad High Court where it was observed that the Commissioner could exercise his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act only in cases where no enquiry is made by the assessing officer. Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D (2) (ii) - Tribunal found that the assessing officer had netted off the interest paid with the interest income for working out the disallowance under Rule 8D. According to the tribunal, the assessing officer had applied his mind to the issue and it was not something that escaped the attention of the assessing officer for the Commissioner to assume jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act on the ground that no enquiry in such regard had been conducted by the assessee. Trade discount - the tribunal found that the Commissioner had issued the notice for addition of trade discount on the ground that the assessee s claim for trade discount was not in order. The tribunal also found that details of the trade discount had been furnished by the assessee to the assessing officer at the time of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and the details of such discount had been included in the paper-book filed before the tribunal - the tribunal found that the Commissioner had changed his stand as indicated in the notice and at the time of passing the order under Section 263 of the Act. For the same reasons, as in respect of the first head pertaining to fixed assets, the tribunal found that the Commissioner had acted without basis. Depreciation claim - tribunal found that the Commissioner had raised the issue in the notice under Section 263 of the Act for excess depreciation but concluded in his order that proper enquiries had not been made by the assessing officer. Again, the tribunal found that there was a change in stand with regard to the notice and in the revision order, which was impermissible. In matters of the present kind where there is a specialized tribunal in place for dealing with matters pertaining to a particular subject, the scope of interference is limited in the present jurisdiction. Once it is seen that a plausible or reasonable view has been taken by the tribunal upon a fair discussion of the matter, this Court in exercise of the authority available in this jurisdiction would not supplant its view in place of the tribunal s unless the error is apparent and palpable. The tribunal has given adequate reasons, and relied on precedents, as to why the manner in which the jurisdiction exercised by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act was found to be erroneous. There does not appear to be any legal error committed by the tribunal in either taking up the appeal or in deciding the same, particularly since cogent grounds have been indicated for interfering with the order of the Commissioner passed under Section 263 of the Act.

Summary

Issues:
1. Tribunal's jurisdiction in entertaining and deciding the appeal without allowing the Assessing Officer to relook into the assessment.
2. Prematurity of the appeal before the Tribunal.
3. Compliance with the order of remand by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal entertained the appeal without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to relook into the assessment. The Tribunal found that the matters directed by the Commissioner of Income Tax for fresh assessment had already been examined by the assessing officer. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the issues raised by the Commissioner did not require a re-look. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner failed to comply with the conditions under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, which require both error in the assessment and prejudice to the Revenue. The Tribunal's decision was based on substantial questions of law, and it was within its jurisdiction to decide the appeal.

2. The Tribunal addressed the issue of prematurity of the appeal and found it maintainable. The Tribunal examined specific matters raised by the Commissioner, such as the addition of fixed assets and disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. In each instance, the Tribunal concluded that the assessing officer had conducted necessary enquiries and applied his mind to the issues. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents to support its findings, emphasizing that the Commissioner's actions lacked a legal basis. The Tribunal's decision to entertain and decide the appeal was based on a fair discussion of the facts and legal principles involved.

3. The Tribunal scrutinized the order of remand by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. It found that the Commissioner's actions were erroneous and lacked a legal basis. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner changed his stance on various issues, including trade discount and depreciation, between the notice and the order under Section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's inconsistent approach did not meet the legal requirements under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was based on a thorough analysis of the facts and legal principles involved, without any apparent legal errors.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal. The Court found that the Tribunal had provided adequate reasons and relied on legal precedents to support its findings. The Court emphasized that unless there is an apparent and palpable error, it would not interfere with the Tribunal's decision. The questions raised were answered in the negative, affirming the Tribunal's jurisdiction and decision.