9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 895 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - assessee to be a beneficiary on account of funds received from four parties - PCIT cancelled the assessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 by directing AO to frame the assessment afresh after doing necessary verification - HELD THAT - The assessment framed by AO cannot be said to be being erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue as these items of so-called bogus loans of Rs. 3,13,000.- from four parties did not come to the notice of the AO during the assessment proceedings warranting the addition by the AO. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the jurisdiction exercise by ld. PCIT is bad in law. In our opinion the assessment framed by the AO u/s 147/144 of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial devoid of which the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot be invoked. The case of the assessee is supported by the judgment of Malabar Industries Limited 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT wherein it has been held that in order to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, the assessment order passed has to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue and even if one of the two conditions are satisfied, even then section 263 by ld. PCIT cannot be invoked. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Legitimacy of proceedings under Section 133(6) and Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Examination of transactions and alleged income escapement. Detailed Analysis: 1. Invocation of Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue in this appeal was whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) correctly invoked the revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contested that the PCIT wrongly held the assessment order dated 27/09/2021 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The PCIT's action was based on the assessment framed under Section 147, which allegedly did not include certain transactions within the ambit of Explanation 3 to Section 147. The Tribunal found that the PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction, as the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal relied on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industries Limited, which states that for Section 263 to be invoked, the assessment order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Since these conditions were not met, the Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order. 2. Legitimacy of Proceedings under Section 133(6) and Section 147 of the Income Tax Act: The assessee argued that the proceedings under Section 133(6) were initiated with the necessary approval and that the transactions in question were fully examined by the AO before issuing the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal noted that the AO had conducted proper inquiries and obtained necessary approvals before forming a belief of income escapement amounting to Rs. 1,45,00,000/-. The PCIT's assertion that the AO failed to examine additional information was deemed incorrect, as the AO's jurisdiction under Explanation 3 to Section 147 is limited to new issues arising during reassessment, not pre-existing information. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the AO's actions were within the legal framework, and the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was inappropriate. 3. Examination of Transactions and Alleged Income Escapement: The Tribunal examined whether the AO had adequately addressed all transactions and potential income escapements. The AO had issued notices and conducted inquiries into transactions aggregating Rs. 1,45,00,000/- and made additions accordingly. The PCIT contended that an additional Rs. 3,13,00,000/- was not assessed, but the Tribunal found that these transactions did not come to the AO's notice during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's assessment was based on the information available and that no new issues were identified during the proceedings that would warrant further additions. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the AO's assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial, invalidating the PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalid, as the conditions for invoking such jurisdiction were not satisfied. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the order of the PCIT was quashed. The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and the need for assessments to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue for Section 263 to be applicable.
|
