2024 (4) TMI 928 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of Revision u/s 263 - AO accepted the reply of the assessee on three items/issues whereas only two items/issues were added to the income of the assessee as mentioned in para 2(i) and 2(v) of the revisionary order - HELD THAT - We note that during the assessment proceedings, the AO has specifically called for information after issuing notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 30.06.2016 and assessee specifically replied the issues raised and offered its explanation as to why these items did not warrant disallowance or addition which was accepted by the AO. In our opinion, the AO has taken a plausible view which also appears to be correct and therefore the ld. PCIT cannot invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act to substitute his view for that of the AO. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Gabreal India Ltd. 1993 (4) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT PCIT has simply exercised jurisdiction by giving directions to the AO without pointing out as to how the view taken by the AO was wrong thereby rendering the assessment passed him his as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The case of assessee finds support from the decision of D. G. Housing 2012 (3) TMI 227 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein has held that it is incumbent upon the PCIT to record an objective findings as to how the issues raised in the revisionary proceedings has rendered the assessment as erroneous. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal pertains to the jurisdiction exercised by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the AY 2013-14.

Issue 1: Invalid Exercise of Jurisdiction by PCIT u/s 263 of the Act:
The appeal raised concern regarding the jurisdiction exercised by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act and the subsequent order dated 31.03.2021.

The PCIT observed that the AO did not examine certain issues during the assessment proceedings, leading to the PCIT issuing a notice u/s 263. The PCIT revised the assessment order directing the AO to consider specific issues after taking into account the assessee's submissions.

The appellant argued that the PCIT's jurisdiction was invalidly exercised, as the AO had already examined the issues in question during the assessment proceedings. The appellant contended that the AO's views were plausible and correct, and the PCIT cannot substitute his own views without proper justification.

The Tribunal noted that the PCIT's exercise of revisionary jurisdiction lacked proper justification and quashed the PCIT's actions.

Decision:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, finding that the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the PCIT was invalidly invoked. The order was pronounced on 22nd April, 2024.