2022 (4) TMI 724 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Reopening of assessment initiated against assessee - AO during the course of assessment proceedings has not properly examined the difference in the closing balance AND gift received by the assessee from his wife was not supported with proper documentary evidences - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the AO during the course of assessment proceedings after making all possible enquiries had completed the assessment under section 147/143(3) - During the course of such assessment, the A.O. had asked the assessee to furnish details of all gifts, loans and advances taken and given during the year or within three years. The amount was nothing, but, repayment of loan taken by the assessee in the past and, therefore, repayment of the loan by the assessee cannot be considered as income of the assessee. Similarly, assessee had filed the details such as copy of Gift Deed, copy of bank statement, copy of acknowledgment of return of income for the A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12, copy of ledger account of Sh. Punit Gupta in the books of the assessee for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. We find an amount of ₹ 2 lakhs was withdrawn by Smt. Pooja Gupta from her bank account on 22.11.2020 and the cash gift was made on 23.11.2010. Under these circumstances, when the A.O. had made full enquiry, in our opinion, the same cannot be considered as lack of enquiry or lack of investigation. Further the view taken by the A.O. after considering various details furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings cannot be termed as unsustainable in law. The A.O. in the instant case has taken a plausible view. Since in the instant case the AO has conducted due enquiry and after being satisfied, accepted the returned income and passed the order under section 143(3)/147 therefore, the order cannot be called as an erroneous order. Therefore, even if the order is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, but, the same not being erroneous, the twin conditions are not satisfied and, therefore, the Ld. PCIT is not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 263 - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Examination of the difference in the closing balance of ?8,51,000/-.
4. Verification of the gift of ?2,00,000/- received from the assessee's wife.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Order Passed Under Section 263:
The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer (A.O.) had passed the assessment order after making all possible enquiries, and it was not a case of lack of enquiry or investigation. The A.O. had examined the bank statements, cash flow statement, and supporting evidence. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, stating that the A.O. had conducted due enquiry and the order passed could not be termed erroneous merely because the PCIT had a different view. The Tribunal cited various judicial precedents, including CIT v. Vikas Polymers and CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., to support that if the A.O. had taken a plausible view, the order could not be revised under section 263.

2. Validity of the Initiation of Proceedings Under Section 147:
The assessee contended that the notice under section 148 was issued mechanically without application of mind and without credible material to form a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal noted that the A.O. had conducted a thorough examination during the assessment proceedings and had asked the assessee to furnish details of all gifts, loans, and advances. The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 147 was valid as the A.O. had followed due process and conducted necessary enquiries.

3. Examination of the Difference in the Closing Balance of ?8,51,000/-:
The PCIT observed that the account of M/s Garhwal Hosiery in the books of the assessee was squared up at the end of the assessment year, whereas the confirmation of accounts from M/s Garhwal Hosiery revealed a closing debit balance of ?8,51,000/-. The PCIT believed this difference indicated un-disclosed business income. However, the assessee explained that the amount was a repayment of a loan taken in the past, supported by bank transactions and relevant documents. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that the repayment of the loan could not be considered as income and the A.O. had rightly accepted the explanation after due verification.

4. Verification of the Gift of ?2,00,000/- Received from the Assessee's Wife:
The PCIT was not satisfied with the documentary evidence supporting the gift of ?2,00,000/- from the assessee's wife, Smt. Pooja Gupta. The assessee provided a gift deed, bank statement, and income tax returns to substantiate the genuineness of the gift. The Tribunal found that the A.O. had verified these documents during the assessment proceedings and had accepted the gift as genuine. The Tribunal held that the PCIT's direction for further verification was unwarranted as the A.O. had already conducted a thorough enquiry.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the A.O. had conducted due enquiries and the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The Tribunal set aside the order of the PCIT under section 263, allowing the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that for invoking section 263, both conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue must be satisfied, which was not the case here. The Tribunal also highlighted that section 263 cannot be used for deeper enquiry based on suspicion or conjectures.

← Previous Next →