2022 (3) TMI 892 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - household expenses shown is inadequate, the explanation given by the assessee regarding reduction in gross profit rate is general in nature and as regards the commission/discount,Assessing Officer has called for only broad details instead of calling for terms of agreement for sale, for allowing commission/discount - HELD THAT - What the revisionary authority by exercising power under section 263 of the Act desires is to substitute his own opinion/decision with that of the AO. In fact, the revisionary authority himself has gone into the allowability or otherwise of each item of expenditure claimed by the assessee. This, in our view, is not the intent and purport of section 263 - It is a fact on record that on all the issues raised by the revisionary authority in the show-cause-notice issued under section 263 Assessing Officer has conducted inquiry in course of the assessment proceeding and has decided those issues applying his own wisdom. Only because such decision of the AO is not to the liking of learned PCIT, it cannot be said that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue - in response to the show-cause-notice issued under section 263 of the Act, the assessee has furnished a detailed reply which has been extensively reproduced in the impugned order of learned PCIT. However, there is no speaking order of learned PCIT on various submissions made by the assessee, not only on the jurisdictional aspect but also on merits. PCIT has rejected assessee s submission and has set aside the assessment order without any strong finding either with regard to the error in the assessment order or prejudice caused to the Revenue. Thus, in our considered opinion, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act in the present case is invalid. Accordingly, we quash the impugned order of learned PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act and restore the assessment order. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2012-13.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed questioning the order passed by the Principal Commissioner under section 263 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2012-13. The appellant did not appear for the hearing, despite multiple prior instances of absence. The Tribunal proceeded ex-parte after hearing the Departmental Representative. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, resulting in a total income of ?57,29,700. The Commissioner observed inadequacies in inquiries made by the Assessing Officer regarding household expenses, gross profit rate, and commission/discount payments. The Principal Commissioner found the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, setting it aside for reconsideration of the identified issues.

Upon review, it was noted that the Assessing Officer had made detailed inquiries and completed the assessment, making various additions and disallowances totaling ?35,44,650. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had properly examined the issues raised by the Principal Commissioner during the assessment process. The Principal Commissioner's attempt to substitute his opinion for that of the Assessing Officer was deemed inappropriate. The Tribunal highlighted that the Principal Commissioner did not provide a strong rationale for setting aside the assessment order, leading to the conclusion that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 was invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the Principal Commissioner's order and upheld the assessment order.

In summary, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had adequately addressed the issues raised during the assessment, and the Principal Commissioner's intervention under section 263 was deemed unwarranted due to lack of substantial reasoning. The appeal was allowed, and the assessment order was restored.