2022 (6) TMI 1002 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - whether the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) can be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue? - HELD THAT - AO in this case had made inquiries in regard to the source of cash receipts and reasons of substantial closing cash balance held by the assessee and after considering the written submission duly supported by bank statements, audit reports, ledger accounts of debtors and explanation offered, the same was accepted by the AO on being satisfied with the submission vis- -vis explanation of the assessee. Such decision of the assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous simply because in his order he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. Moreover, in the instant case, PCIT himself, even after initiating proceedings for revision and hearing the assessee, sub silentio on cash position as erroneous but suspected the occurrences of cash receipts merely on surmise and conjecture and without any refuting material, which is in our opinion is not permissible. Further inquiry and/or fresh determination can be directed by the PCIT only after coming to the conclusion that the earlier finding of the Ld AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on the basis of evidential material and without doing so, he does not get the power to set aside the assessment, hence in our considered opinion, the conclusion drawn by the Ld PCIT is untenable in law. We de integro and applying the dictum form CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd 1993 (4) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT are of the strong view that, the action of Ld PCIT could not be sustainable in eyes of law, ergo we find no infirmity with the 143(3) order of assessment and consequently quash the revisionary order, thus the solitary legal ground of the appellant is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Legitimacy of the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Examination of whether the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements and principles of natural justice in revisionary proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The appellant challenged the revisionary jurisdiction of the PCIT, who directed the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication after conducting necessary enquiries. The PCIT invoked revisionary powers under Section 263(1) of the Act, considering the assessment order erroneous due to the absence of enquiries regarding the cash position at the closure of the financial year. The Tribunal noted that the PCIT's jurisdiction under Section 263 requires the satisfaction of two conditions: the order must be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked.

2. Legitimacy of the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The appellant's income tax return for AY 2016-2017 was scrutinized under CASS to verify substantial closing cash in hand, and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), accepting the declared income. The Tribunal observed that explicit queries were raised by the AO regarding the closing cash position, and the appellant provided extensive submissions, including audited financial statements and bank statements. The AO, after due inquiry and verification, was satisfied with the appellant's explanations and completed the assessment without making any additions.

3. Examination of whether the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue:
The PCIT noted substantial cash receipts from two debtors in the last week of the financial year and questioned their genuineness. However, the Tribunal found that the AO had conducted a detailed inquiry into these receipts and was satisfied with the explanations provided by the appellant. The Tribunal highlighted that an order cannot be deemed erroneous simply because the AO did not elaborate on his findings in the assessment order. The PCIT's suspicion was based on conjecture and without any refuting material, which is not permissible for invoking Section 263.

4. Compliance with procedural requirements and principles of natural justice in revisionary proceedings:
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following procedural requirements and principles of natural justice in revisionary proceedings. The PCIT must make or cause to be made necessary inquiries and provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard. In this case, the Tribunal found that the AO had made necessary inquiries and the appellant had provided satisfactory explanations. The PCIT's action of redoing the exercise without any new evidence was deemed untenable in law.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the AO had made due inquiries and was satisfied with the appellant's explanations regarding the substantial closing cash balance. The PCIT's revisionary action was based on suspicion without refuting material, and therefore, the assessment order under Section 143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the revisionary order and allowed the appeal of the appellant assessee.