2022 (11) TMI 486 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Whether Tribunal was justified in law by setting aside the order passed under Section 263 of the said Act on the ground that the AO had already conducted an inquiry on the issues in question in connection to the proceedings initiated under Section 263? - HELD THAT - As seen that it is not a case of no enquiry conducted by the AO but the Assessing Officer had given a questionnaire to the assessee and after inviting a reply on the various queries raised, the assessment has been completed. The settled legal position on the exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act is that the supervisory jurisdiction to circumstances must exist to enable the Commissioner to exercise power of revision namely, the assessment order should be erroneous and it should be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. If the AO has taken a decision in accordance with law, the said order cannot be termed to be erroneous by the revisional authority merely because the order should have been written in a different format or the order should be an elaborate order. The consideration of revisional authority u/s 263 must be based on materials on record of the proceedings called for by him. If there is no material on record on which it can be said that the revisional authority acting in a reasonable manner could have come to such a conclusion, the very initiation of the proceedings by the revisional authority will be illegal and without jurisdiction. On a reading of the order passed by the revisional authority u/s 263 it is evidently clear that there is no specific finding rendered by the authority as to how the order passed by the AO was erroneous and all that the revisional authority states is that no enquiry was conducted, which is factually incorrect.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal filed by revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Justification of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax exercising power under Section 263 of the Act.
3. Discussion on whether Assessing Officer conducted proper inquiries on specific issues.
4. Assessment of whether the revisional authority acted within its jurisdiction under Section 263.
5. Examination of whether the order passed by the revisional authority was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Calcutta High Court was filed by the revenue challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2016-17. The substantial questions of law raised by the revenue included the justification of the Tribunal's decision to set aside the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's actions were questioned regarding the issues of Book Profit tax effect and weighted deduction under Section 35(1) of the Act. The Tribunal was also criticized for allegedly allowing the appeal of the assessee without proper verification, leading to perversity in the decision-making process.

2. The central question in this case revolved around the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act. The Court examined whether the PCIT was justified in invoking this power based on the contention that the Assessing Officer did not conduct proper inquiries during the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer had indeed conducted inquiries on the issues raised by the PCIT and had arrived at a conclusion after receiving responses to notices issued under Section 142(1).

3. The Court observed that the Assessing Officer had discussed and considered all three issues highlighted by the PCIT, as evidenced by the replies submitted by the assessee to the notices issued. It was emphasized that the Assessing Officer had followed due process by providing a questionnaire to the assessee and completing the assessment after receiving responses. The legal position regarding the exercise of power under Section 263 was reiterated, emphasizing that the revisional authority must have valid reasons to term an assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

4. The Court highlighted that for the revisional authority to exercise power under Section 263, there must be material on record justifying such a decision. It was noted that the revisional authority's order lacked a specific finding on how the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous, merely stating that no inquiry was conducted, which was factually incorrect. The Court emphasized the importance of the revisional authority basing its decisions on the materials available in the proceedings.

5. Ultimately, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to grant relief in favor of the assessee, finding no grounds to interfere with the order. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, and the substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue. The Court's decision affirmed the Tribunal's ruling and concluded the matter accordingly.