2022 (6) TMI 111 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - investment and income relating to properties - PCIT perused the record and noted that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue - AO has not called for the bank account from which the payments were made to the seller, Sh. Madan Pal Singh to verify whether the payments were made by the assessee from his individual bank account or from the bank account of Kulwant Kaur Kukreja Educational Society - AO has also not examined the violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) which prohibits any trust/society from diverting its income directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred to in Sub-Section (3) - HELD THAT - It is surprising to note that neither the AO has called for the bank account from which such huge amounts of more than Rs.8 crores has been paid to the seller nor the assessee has filed any document before us that he has filed the bank account before the AO from which the payments were made. The submissions of ld. Counsel for the assessee that he has verbally explained the issue to the AO during the course of assessment proceedings cannot be accepted as proper inquiry by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings in absence of any query raised by the AO to this effect. So far as, the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Assessment Order in the case of Kulwant Kaur Kukreja Educational Society was passed u/s 143(3) and no action u/s 147/263 has been taken is concerned, we find the said order is dated 27.12.2018 i.e. after the passing the order of the assessee on 02.11.2018. In our opinion, when the case was selected for limited scrutiny for the purpose of verification of investment in properties and the AO failed to examine the issue for which the case was selected by not asking for the bank account, the source, the applicability of provisions of Section 13(1)(c) therefore, the order passed by the AO without examining the basic details in our opinion, makes the order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We, therefore, uphold the order of the ld. PCIT in cancelling the assessment under the provisions of Section 263 of the I.T. Act with a direction to the AO to pass the fresh Assessment Order after due verification and after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision of assessment order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Examination of investment and income disclosure related to properties.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Revision of assessment order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The appeal was filed against the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment year 2016-17. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) found the original assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The PCIT noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not adequately examine crucial aspects during the assessment proceedings, such as verifying payments made for property purchase and potential violations of Section 13(1)(c) of the IT Act. The PCIT issued a show cause notice to the assessee, eventually canceling the assessment order and directing a fresh assessment. The PCIT's decision was based on the lack of justification provided by the assessee regarding income diversion and insufficient documentary evidence submitted. The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's decision, emphasizing the AO's failure to inquire into critical details, making the original order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests.

Issue 2: Examination of investment and income disclosure related to properties
The case involved scrutiny of investments and income disclosure related to properties by the AO. The assessee had purchased properties, but the AO did not adequately investigate the source of funds, bank statements, or compliance with Section 13(1)(c) of the IT Act. The Tribunal noted that the AO's failure to request bank account details for significant payments and lack of proper inquiry rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's arguments regarding verbal explanations provided during assessment proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of thorough examination and proper verification. The Tribunal supported the PCIT's decision to cancel the assessment order, directing a fresh assessment after due verification and hearing. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, highlighting the AO's failure to address fundamental details, justifying the PCIT's intervention under Section 263 of the IT Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the PCIT's decision to cancel the assessment order and direct a fresh assessment due to the AO's failure to adequately examine critical aspects during the assessment proceedings, making the original order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of thorough verification and proper inquiry into investment and income disclosure related to properties, supporting the PCIT's intervention under Section 263 of the IT Act.