2024 (4) TMI 50 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - inadequate v/s no enquiry - unsecured loan, difference in stock and late payment of PF ESI - HELD THAT - CIT has not applied his mind to arrive at a consideration which is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue for passing the impugned order u/s. 263 of the Act. We observe that in the course of proceeding u/s. 263 of the Act, assessee had furnished the relevant details and explained the issues raised through the show cause notice, supporting its contentions by corroborative documentary evidence. It is well settled law that for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, both the conditions that the order must be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue needs to be satisfied. In cases where there is inadequate enquiry but not lack of enquiry, again the CIT must give and record a finding that the order/enquiry made is erroneous. This can happen if an enquiry and verification is conducted by the CIT and he is able to establish and show the error or mistake made by the AO, making the order unsustainable in law. In some cases, possibly though rarely, the CIT can also show and establish that the facts on record or inferences drawn from facts on record per se justified and mandated further enquiry or investigation but the AO had erroneously not undertaken the same. However, the said finding must be clear, unambiguous and not debatable. The matter cannot be remitted for a fresh decision to the AO to conduct further enquiries without a finding that the order is erroneous, the condition or requirement which must be satisfied for exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the matter/issue to the AO would imply and mean that the CIT has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the AO to decide the aspect/question. In the present case before us, we note that Ld. Pr. CIT has raised three issues in the show cause notice and thereafter concluded on the same to set aside the assessment with the direction to do it afresh. We find that the issues in the present case considered by the Ld. CIT for exercising revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act are purely on facts which are verifiable from the records of the assessee. Moreover, the same have been examined by the Ld. AO in the course of assessment proceedings for which all the relevant details and explanations were placed on record which also forms part of the paper book before us. We do find force in the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel. CIT, DR could not bring any material on record to controvert the factual position as submitted before us. Accordingly, on the issue raised by the Ld. PCIT in the revisionary proceedings, no action u/s 263 is justifiable which in our considered view cannot be sustained under the facts and circumstances of the present case - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Assumption of jurisdiction by Ld. Pr. CIT, Ranchi for invoking the revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Examination and verification of unsecured loan discrepancies.
3. Reconciliation of difference in stock values.
4. Late payment of PF & ESI contributions.

Summary:

1. Assumption of Jurisdiction by Ld. Pr. CIT:
The appeal challenges the revision order dated 18.03.2021 by Ld. Pr. CIT, Ranchi, against the assessment order dated 28.12.2018 for AY 2016-17. The assessee contends that the Ld. Pr. CIT improperly invoked section 263 of the Act, deeming the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue without adequate grounds.

2. Unsecured Loan Discrepancies:
The Ld. Pr. CIT noted a discrepancy in the unsecured loan of Rs. 32 lakh, where the balance sheet mentioned Shri U. P. Singh, but the written submissions mentioned Jyotipunj Educational Welfare. The assessee explained this as an inadvertent reporting error, asserting that no fresh loan was taken during the year. The Ld. AO had accepted the details during assessment, indicating no lack of enquiry.

3. Reconciliation of Stock Values:
The Ld. Pr. CIT observed a difference of Rs. 57,96,973/- between the opening and closing stock values. The assessee clarified that the difference pertained to finished goods, not mentioned in sub-notes due to no change during the year. The Ld. AO had examined this during assessment, and the Ld. Pr. CIT's interpretation was deemed a misreading of the balance sheet.

4. Late Payment of PF & ESI Contributions:
The Ld. Pr. CIT highlighted delayed PF & ESI contributions. The assessee argued that these were reported in the tax audit report and accepted by the Ld. AO based on judicial decisions favoring the assessee, as the deposits were made before the due date of filing the return.

Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal found that the Ld. Pr. CIT did not apply his mind to determine the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The assessee had furnished relevant details and explanations during the section 263 proceedings, supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that both conditions'erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue'must be satisfied for invoking section 263, as established by judicial precedents, including Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and DG Housing Finance Co. Ltd. [2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 (Del).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Ld. Pr. CIT's revisionary proceedings were not justified as the issues were factual and verifiable from the assessee's records, already examined by the Ld. AO. The Tribunal quashed the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act, allowing the assessee's appeal.

Order Pronouncement:
The order was pronounced in the open court on 29th February, 2024.

← Previous Next →