2020 (2) TMI 719 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - receipts of assessee under different heads i.e., academic fees, building development fund and other development funds comes - HELD THAT - When the amount in question is included in total receipt of the assessee and have been assessed by the A.O, as such at original assessment stage after examining the same, there is no question of holding that it is an unaccounted income of the assessee or that A.O. failed to make enquiry on the same. The A.O. has verified all the facts after issuing query letter and considered the reply of the assessee and examination of details and books of accounts. Since the total receipts have been disclosed in the income and expenditure account being the receipt on account of fees received from the students and it is disclosed in the income and expenditure account, it could not be considered as unaccounted income in the hands of the assessee. A.O. has considered the total income as per income and expenditure account as per the reply filed at original assessment stage, therefore, it could not be termed as that A.O. did not verify the fact of receipt of amount from the students and thereafter deposit in Bank Account. Why the cost of acquisition of the assets should not be disallowed and not considered as income of the assessee Trust? - Second issue is with regard to amount of two entries ₹ 1.5 crores, which assessee has explained that ₹ 1.56 crores was the amount received on sale of land through cheque, therefore, it could not be an undisclosed income of the assessee. Further, interest have been received which is also appearing in Form-26AS and disclosed to the Revenue Department as well. Therefore, figure of ₹ 2.18 crores noticed by the CIT(E) in the show cause notice under section 263 is incorrect. A.O. has considered the sale proceeds and expenditure incurred by the assessee including building fund etc., in the original assessment proceedings. CIT(E) also considered the issue of cost of acquisition, but, the A.O. in the subsequent Order in pursuance of Order under section 263 did not make any addition against the assessee on account of interest as well as cost of acquisition because the same was also considered and added in the original assessment. These facts, therefore, made it very clear that Ld. CIT(E) in the show cause notice has mentioned some incorrect facts which are not part of the record and all the issues have been examined by the A.O. and has specifically mentioned in assessment order. If Ld. CIT(E) wanted to take a different view, then he should have made a detailed enquiry at revision stage and should have come to the finding as to how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. The Ld. CIT(E) merely mentioned that since these issues have not been enquired into by the A.O, therefore, Explanation-2 to Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961, would apply against the assessee. Further, assessee has explained all the issues at original assessment stage as well as before Ld. CIT(E) in proceeding under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, it is not fit case of invocation of jurisdiction under section 263 - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of invoking Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Verification of cash deposits and other financial entries by the Assessing Officer (A.O.).
3. Examination of interest income and cost of acquisition of assets.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of Invoking Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The appeal by the Assessee was directed against the Order of Ld. CIT(E) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-2015. The Ld. CIT(E) found the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. However, the tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(E) did not conduct a detailed enquiry and did not point out how the assessment order was erroneous. The tribunal emphasized that if the revisional authority opines that further enquiry is required, such enquiry should be conducted by the revisional authority themselves to record findings. The tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Company Limited vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) and other relevant case laws to conclude that the invocation of Section 263 was invalid.

2. Verification of Cash Deposits and Other Financial Entries by the A.O.:
The Ld. CIT(E) noted that certain financial details, including a cash deposit of ?6.05 crores, were not verified by the A.O. However, the Assessee explained that the cash deposits were part of the total receipts of ?16.66 crores, which included academic fees, building development fund, and other development funds. The Assessee provided complete details of the fees received and the cash deposited in the Axis Bank. The tribunal found that the A.O. had verified these details during the original assessment, and the receipts were disclosed in the income and expenditure account. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that the A.O. had made the necessary enquiries, and the cash deposits could not be considered unaccounted income.

3. Examination of Interest Income and Cost of Acquisition of Assets:
The Ld. CIT(E) questioned the verification of interest income and the cost of acquisition of assets. The Assessee clarified that the interest income received was ?64,28,241, which was reflected in Form-26AS, and not ?2.18 crores as mentioned by the Ld. CIT(E). Additionally, the Assessee explained that ?1.56 crores received from the sale of land was accounted for in the books. The tribunal noted that the A.O. had considered the sale proceeds and expenditure, including the building fund, during the original assessment. The tribunal also observed that in the subsequent order, the A.O. did not make any additions regarding interest or cost of acquisition, indicating that these aspects were already examined.

The tribunal concluded that the Ld. CIT(E) mentioned incorrect facts in the show cause notice and that all issues were examined by the A.O. at the original assessment stage. Hence, the tribunal found no justification for invoking Section 263 and set aside the order under Section 263, restoring the original assessment order.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the appeal of the Assessee, setting aside the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and restored the original assessment order. The tribunal emphasized that the A.O. had made the necessary enquiries and verifications, and the Ld. CIT(E) did not provide sufficient grounds to prove the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue.