9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 1725 - HC - Income TaxValidity of revision u/s 263 - ITAT set aside revision as noticed that the Assessing Officer had raised several queries and had also demanded documents the details of which have been mentioned in the ITAT order - HELD THAT - AO had issued a questionnaire on 28.12.2020 and had also asked for documents which were answered and furnished to the AO by the assessee and the same were also informed to the PCIT who ensued proceedings under Section 263 of the IT Act. PCIT have not pointed out any further enquires which were required to be made by the AO in this case which have not been so made. The scope of Section 263 of the IT Act is apparently to see whether the concerned AO has failed to conduct a proper inquiry and therefore committed an error resulting in causing loss to the revenue. Simply by holding that the AO was required to make more enquiries would not be a valid ground for treating the order of the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The power u/s 263 of the Act cannot be invoked in such circumstances by the PCIT. The order therefore passed by the PCIT is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same has been quashed by the ITAT which does not warrant any interference by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law has arisen in this appeal for consideration as the factual aspects have completely and thoroughly been examined by the ITAT. Decided against revenue.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court in this appeal were: (a) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) exceeded its jurisdiction by re-examining the entire case afresh, which is beyond its powers; (b) Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was justified in invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) on the ground that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to conduct proper inquiry before passing the assessment order; (c) Whether the AO had indeed failed to conduct adequate inquiry and verification, particularly regarding the issue of share allotment to two companies, and whether the PCIT's order under Section 263 was sustainable; (d) Whether the factual findings of the ITAT, regarding the adequacy of the AO's inquiry and the scope of Section 263, warranted interference by the High Court in the present appeal. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (a): Whether ITAT exceeded jurisdiction by re-examining the case afresh The legal framework governing the jurisdiction of ITAT is that it is primarily an appellate authority tasked with examining the correctness of the assessment order based on the record before the AO. It is not empowered to conduct a de novo assessment or re-assess the entire case afresh. The ITAT's role is circumscribed to reviewing the legality and propriety of the assessment and related orders. In the present matter, the appellant contended that the ITAT had re-examined the entire record afresh, which was impermissible. However, the Court noted that the ITAT's examination was in the nature of appellate scrutiny of the AO's inquiry and findings rather than a fresh assessment. The ITAT's review included consideration of the AO's queries, the responses furnished, and the documentation provided by the assessee. This was within the ITAT's jurisdiction to ensure that the AO had conducted a proper inquiry before passing the assessment order. The Court found no overreach by the ITAT in reviewing the record and held that the ITAT's approach was consistent with its appellate mandate. Issue (b) & (c): Validity of PCIT's invocation of Section 263 revisional jurisdiction on grounds of inadequate inquiry by AO Section 263 of the IT Act empowers the PCIT to revise an assessment order if it is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The scope of this power is limited to cases where the AO has failed to conduct a proper inquiry or has committed an error resulting in loss to the revenue. The PCIT had invoked Section 263 on the basis that the AO had passed the assessment order without conducting any inquiry, particularly regarding the allotment of shares to two companies. The PCIT's order directed the matter to be remanded to the AO for further inquiry. The Court examined the record and the ITAT's findings, which revealed that the AO had indeed issued a detailed questionnaire dated 28.12.2020 seeking information such as:
The assessee had duly responded to these queries and furnished the relevant documents, which the AO considered before accepting the claim. The PCIT did not identify any specific further inquiries that the AO failed to make. The Court emphasized that mere assertion that the AO could have conducted more inquiries does not justify invoking Section 263. The Court held that the PCIT's order was not sustainable as it did not demonstrate any failure or lapse by the AO in conducting proper inquiry. The power under Section 263 cannot be exercised merely on the basis of hypothetical or speculative grounds that more inquiries could have been made. Issue (d): Whether ITAT's factual findings warrant interference by the High Court The ITAT had thoroughly examined the factual aspects, including the AO's inquiries and the assessee's responses. It concluded that the AO had made adequate enquiries and that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justified. The Court found that the ITAT's findings were based on a comprehensive review of the record and were not perverse or legally unsustainable. Since the appeal raised no substantial question of law and was primarily concerned with factual determinations, the Court declined to interfere with the ITAT's order. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court preserved the following crucial legal reasoning verbatim from the ITAT order: "Simply by holding that the Assessing Officer was required to make more enquiries, would not be a valid ground for treating the order of the Assessing Officer, as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The power under Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked in such circumstances by the PCIT." This principle underscores the limited scope of Section 263 revisional jurisdiction, which requires concrete failure or error by the AO rather than mere possibility of additional inquiries. The Court established that the AO's issuance of a detailed questionnaire and acceptance of the assessee's replies constituted adequate inquiry, thereby negating the PCIT's basis for revision. Final determinations included:
|
