2022 (12) TMI 1356 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - non-verification of the genuineness of the brokerage expenditure incurred on new loans and renewal of loans taken for the purpose of business and Interest of free advances given by the assessee - HELD THAT - AO has examined all the issues and made additions after calling for necessary information from the assessee as well as from the third parties u/s 133(6) of the Act and made additions accordingly. We find that the AO has elaborately discussed the issue passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. Therefore we are of that view the power has invalidly been exercised by PCIT to set aside the order framed u/s 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act dated 23.12.2019 which has been validly passed by the AO and is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We have perused several decisions as cited before us which stated above. Assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 263 was framed in accordance with directions by Ld. PCIT as contained in the order passed u/s 263 and accordingly the assessment so framed is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. On this count alone, the invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act bythe Ld. PCIT is wrong and cannot be sustained as the assessment framed pursuant to the order of ld PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.This is the ratio which has been laid down in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT wherein it has been held that in order to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act the order passed by the AO has to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thus satisfaction of both conditions is sine non quo and mandatory before invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263. Period of limitation - Issue on which the ld. PCIT proposed the revision of order framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 23.12.2019, issue which was directed by the ld PCIT in the order u/s 263 of the Act dated 23.03.2022 was not the subject matter of revisionary proceedings in the first round. Therefore, the period of limitation has to run from the date of assessment as framed under section 143(3) dated 26.12.2016 i.e. from the end of financial year 31.3.2017. In view of this, we incline to hold that the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the ld. PCIT is hopelessly barred by limitation - Appeal of assesee allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation of order passed under Section 263.
2. Validity of initiation of proceedings under Section 263.
3. Justification for the Ld. Principal CIT in exercising revisionary jurisdiction.
4. Adequacy of enquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer (AO).
5. Alleged errors in computation and unexplained cash credit.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation of Order Passed under Section 263:
The appellant contended that the order dated 23.03.2022 passed under Section 263 by the Ld. Principal CIT is barred by the law of limitation. The original assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed on 26.12.2016, and the limitation period expired on 31.03.2019. The Ld. PCIT's subsequent order dated 23.12.2019 was argued to be beyond the permissible period, making the exercise of jurisdiction invalid. The Tribunal agreed, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Limited, which held that the limitation period runs from the original assessment date.

2. Validity of Initiation of Proceedings under Section 263:
The appellant argued that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 in the second round was unjustified as the issues had already been examined by the AO in the first round. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that the AO had examined all issues and made necessary additions in the first round. The Tribunal held that the Ld. PCIT's second invocation of Section 263 was invalid as the original assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

3. Justification for the Ld. Principal CIT in Exercising Revisionary Jurisdiction:
The Ld. Principal CIT exercised revisionary jurisdiction on the grounds that the AO did not examine the persons/documents from whom loans were raised. The appellant countered that all necessary documents were provided and verified by the AO. The Tribunal supported the appellant's contention, stating that the AO had elaborately discussed the issues and made additions after thorough verification. The Tribunal concluded that the Ld. PCIT's exercise of jurisdiction was invalid as the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

4. Adequacy of Enquiries Conducted by the Assessing Officer (AO):
The appellant maintained that the AO had complied with all directions and conducted requisite enquiries during the first round of proceedings. The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed examined the issues in detail and made necessary additions. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's powers in set-aside proceedings are confined to specific issues restored by the Ld. PCIT and cannot be expanded. Thus, the Tribunal held that the AO's enquiries were adequate and the Ld. PCIT's further revision was unwarranted.

5. Alleged Errors in Computation and Unexplained Cash Credit:
The Ld. Principal CIT held that there was a difference of Rs. 11,11,00,000/- in loan amounts and an error of Rs. 27,000/- in the assessment order. The appellant argued that these issues were already addressed by the AO. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the AO had made additions after verifying transactions with third parties. The Tribunal concluded that the Ld. PCIT's findings were incorrect as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the order passed under Section 263 by the Ld. Principal CIT, holding it invalid and barred by limitation. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries and made necessary additions in the first round, rendering further revision unnecessary. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

← Previous Next →