9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 466 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Payment made in cash against the purchase of immovable property - AO accepted the declared income and passed the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B - HELD THAT - Section 263 of the Act empowers the Ld.PCIT to revise any order passed by the AO if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. An order can be considered erroneous if it is passed without proper verification, inquiry, or based on incorrect facts or law and it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue if it results in the loss of revenue or incorrect computation of taxable income. In the present case, it is evident that even after persistent requests by the assessee, the AO could not provide the documentary evidence based on which the assessment was reopened and passed order u/s. 147 read with section 144. It is only the case where the evidence available with the Ld.PCIT gave rise to suspicion about its veracity that further scrutiny is called for. The circumstances can certainly be termed as inadequate inquiry. Therefore, in our opinion, the Ld.PCIT is not wrong in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the first ground of the assessee s appeal is dismissed. Addition based on inference from the impounded documents - Validity of a notice issued u/s 263 based on incorrect grounds or unsupported evidence can be questioned. If the reasons cited in the notice are factually incorrect or legally unsustainable, the notice can be challenged as invalid. PCIT must have sufficient evidence to support the claim that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Mere suspicion or conjecture is not sufficient. As evident that for the Ld.PCIT to invoke Section 263 of the Act, it must be conclusively proven that the AO's order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In this case, the AO made inadequate inquiries, during the proceedings, the AO could not provide any documentary evidence that formed the basis for reopening the assessment. This lack of evidence, supports the conclusion that the Ld.PCIT's action of setting aside the order of AO and directing him to pass a fresh order is unwarranted. In view of the above, the order passed by the Ld.PCIT under Section 263 is set aside. Accordingly, the second ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's (PCIT) exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Legality of the PCIT's directive to the Assessing Officer (AO) to make an addition of Rs. 22,13,735/- as unaccounted cash payment for the purchase of property. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the PCIT's Exercise of Jurisdiction under Section 263: The PCIT exercised revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, setting aside the AO's order and directing a fresh assessment. The PCIT's contention was that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue due to the alleged unaccounted cash payment of Rs. 22,13,735/- for the purchase of immovable property. The PCIT based this on impounded documents from a search operation, which allegedly indicated the unaccounted payment. The assessee argued that the AO had already considered the relevant facts and documents during the reassessment proceedings and had concluded that no such unaccounted payment was made. The assessee also contended that the PCIT's reliance on the impounded documents was misplaced as these documents did not specifically mention the assessee's name or the plot number related to the transaction. The tribunal noted that the AO had issued multiple notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and had inquired into the purchase of the immovable property. Despite repeated requests, the AO could not provide any documentary evidence to substantiate the claim of unaccounted cash payment. The tribunal emphasized that Section 263 empowers the PCIT to revise an order if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. However, mere suspicion or inadequate inquiry by the AO does not justify the invocation of Section 263. The tribunal concluded that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified as the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the first ground of the assessee's appeal was dismissed. 2. Legality of the PCIT's Directive to Make an Addition of Rs. 22,13,735/-: The PCIT directed the AO to add Rs. 22,13,735/- as unaccounted cash payment for the purchase of property. The assessee contended that the PCIT's directive was based on an incorrect inference from the impounded documents, which did not specifically mention the assessee or the transaction in question. The assessee further argued that the AO had already examined the relevant documents and found no evidence of unaccounted payment. The tribunal observed that the PCIT's reliance on the impounded documents was not supported by concrete evidence linking the assessee to the alleged unaccounted payment. The tribunal also noted that the principles of natural justice require that any evidence used against the assessee must be disclosed to them, allowing for cross-examination and rebuttal. The tribunal cited several judicial precedents emphasizing the necessity of providing the assessee with an opportunity to contest the evidence. Based on the detailed analysis of the facts and judicial precedents, the tribunal concluded that the PCIT's directive to the AO to make an addition of Rs. 22,13,735/- was unwarranted. The tribunal set aside the PCIT's order under Section 263, allowing the second ground of the assessee's appeal. Conclusion: In summary, the tribunal found that the PCIT's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified, and the directive to make an addition of Rs. 22,13,735/- was unwarranted. The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee partly, setting aside the PCIT's order and upholding the AO's original assessment order. The third ground of the assessee's appeal was general in nature and not adjudicated. The order was pronounced in the open court on 6 August 2024 at Ahmedabad.
|
