2024 (9) TMI 1567 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - CIT observed that the assessee has declared Guarantee income as other income , however, the assessee claimed such income as notional income and reduced the same from total income. HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note that the aspect of Guarantee income as mentioned in note 28 has been enquired by the AO during the assessment proceedings and after taking the cognizance of the same, the same was allowed by the AO. The Observation of the PCIT that the same was not examined properly is not justifiable on the part of the PCIT. The Notional Guarantee Income charged from joint venture of the investment and hence investment cost has been increased by the said amount cannot be treated as actual income incurred by the assessee. PCIT while invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act has totally ignored the aspect that the AO has verify the same and in fact Notional Guarantee Income has not resulted into any loss of the Revenue as contemplated by Ld.PCIT in para 7.1 of the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. Thus, in the present case the Assessing Officer has not passed the assessment order which will result into prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue or erroneous to the interest of Revenue. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of setting aside the assessment order by PCIT-1, Ahmedabad.
3. Jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act.
4. Treatment of notional guarantee income.
5. Compliance with legal standards in assessment proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee challenged the validity of the order passed by the PCIT-1, Ahmedabad.

2. The PCIT-1, Ahmedabad set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, citing issues related to notional guarantee income. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer had already examined the issue during the assessment proceedings and had accepted the explanation provided by the assessee. The PCIT's conclusion was challenged on the grounds that there was no basis for considering the assessment order as erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

3. The assessee argued that the twin conditions for invoking jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act were not satisfied as the issue relied upon by the PCIT did not demonstrate any error or prejudice to the revenue. The assessee emphasized that the notional guarantee income was disclosed as per accounting standards and was not actual income received, thus justifying its treatment in the return of income.

4. The Assessing Officer had examined the notional guarantee income during the assessment proceedings and accepted the explanation provided by the assessee. The PCIT's decision to invoke section 263 was deemed unjustified as it ignored the Assessing Officer's verification and the fact that the notional income did not result in any revenue loss. The judicial precedents cited by the assessee supported the contention that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

5. After hearing both parties and reviewing the relevant materials, the Tribunal found that the PCIT's observation regarding the notional guarantee income was not justified. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had appropriately examined the issue, and the notional income did not lead to any revenue loss. Therefore, the PCIT's decision to set aside the assessment order was considered a second view, not permissible under section 263 of the Act, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, emphasizing that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, and the PCIT's decision under section 263 was unwarranted.