9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of CIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act - Whether the CIT's order revising the assessment is valid when the AO had two possible views on the treatment of advance money received by the assessee. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the CIT's order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, dated 24th March, 2005. The appellant, an Association of Persons (AOP), was formed in 1993 for the business of buying and selling agricultural land. The AO assessed the income at Rs. 42,78,794 under section 143(3)/148, after the AOP declared a net loss of Rs. 64,298 in response to a notice under section 148. Subsequently, during the pendency of an appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT issued a show-cause notice under section 263, challenging the AO's assessment. The key issue revolved around the treatment of advance money of Rs. 38,17,000 received by the AOP from various parties for the sale of agricultural land. The AO considered this advance as business income, leading to a difference of opinion on whether it should be categorized under 'Business income' or 'Income from other sources'. The CIT contended that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest, warranting revision under section 263. The CIT observed that the AO had considered two contradictory views in the assessment order, leading to a dilemma. The CIT held that the AO should have treated the advance money as undisclosed income of the AOP rather than business income, as it could not be classified as income. The legal interpretation of section 263 necessitates that for revision, the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. A decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. v. CIT was cited to clarify this requirement. In this case, the AO had chosen one legally permissible course of action out of two options, making the order not erroneous but possibly prejudicial to Revenue. The CIT cannot substitute his own judgment under section 263 if the AO's decision is legally sustainable. The jurisdiction of the CIT is ousted when one of the essential conditions is missing, as established by legal precedents. Furthermore, the CIT's intervention through section 263 was deemed invalid as the matter was sub judice before the CIT(A). Citing legal precedents such as Aerens Infrastructure & Technology Ltd. v. CIT and CWT v. Sampathmal Chordia, it was established that a revision under section 263 during the pendency of an appeal is impermissible. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT under section 263 was held invalid, and the AO's assessment order was upheld. The decision resulted in the cancellation of the order under section 263, leading to the allowance of the appeal in favor of the assessee.
|
