2022 (9) TMI 818 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - As per the CIT, AO has not recorded the findings on the share premium received by the assessee in the impugned assessment year - since the AO has not examined the issue of share premium, the order is considered to be erroneous to the interest of the revenue - HELD THAT - From the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, we observe that there is no finding recorded by the AO or any discussion on the share premium received by the assessee during the A.Y.2015-16. CIT, being the revisional authority considered the order of the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. As the AO has not verified or made any enquiries with respect to share premium received by the assessee company, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act, considering the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act as erroneous is in accordance with the provisions u/s 263 and hence the order of the Ld.Pr.CIT needs no interference. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.Pr.CIT and dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of Delay, Validity of Order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act

Condonation of Delay:
The appeal was filed with a delay of 522 days against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The delay was attributed to a misunderstanding regarding the appeal process. The assessee believed the appeal could be filed against a consequential order, not the order passed by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Following the Supreme Court's decision to exclude a specific period, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for hearing.

Validity of Order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee challenged the order passed under Section 263 of the Act by the Principal Commissioner, arguing that the original assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was not erroneous. The assessee contended that all relevant information was provided to the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. However, the Departmental Representative argued that the issue of share premium was not examined by the Assessing Officer, rendering the order erroneous. The Tribunal observed that the original assessment order did not address the share premium issue, leading to the conclusion that the order was indeed erroneous. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263 of the Act, dismissing the grounds raised by the assessee.

Analysis:
The Tribunal considered the grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the original assessment order was not erroneous as all relevant information was provided during the assessment proceedings. However, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not address the issue of share premium received by the assessee, leading to the conclusion that the order was indeed erroneous. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263, emphasizing the importance of thorough assessment procedures to avoid such errors in the future.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision highlights the significance of a comprehensive assessment process to ensure accurate and thorough consideration of all relevant aspects. In this case, the failure to address the issue of share premium in the original assessment order led to the order being deemed erroneous under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's ruling underscores the importance of diligent assessment practices to prevent such errors and uphold the integrity of the tax assessment system.