2025 (1) TMI 567 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of Revision u/s 263 - underlined assessment order is founded on invalid/mechanical approval u/s 153D - HELD THAT - It is established by law that provision of section 153D is mandatory to initiate assessment or reassessment u/s 153C and in section 263 any order does not include an order which is void ab initio. The submission of appellant that approval is mechanical and without application of mind, at best on such approval if any proceeding is initiated it will have null and void effect in the eye of law and will have no relevancy; and that it is not subject to revision. It is also submitted that in the above circumstances any order passed under revisional authority remains unsustainable. From the bare perusal of the approval it does not appear as to when draft assessment order was received by the competent authority, who issued the approval and it clearly lacks of thought process which is essential for a valid approval that competent authority entered into thought process and after application of mind he issued the same and mechanical approval issued in the mechanical way is not permissible in the eye of law. Thus, we find that there is material substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the assessee/appellant. As approval in question is quite mechanical, passed without application of mind and lacks sufficient thoughtful process, which is nto permissible in the eye of law and resultantly assessment order followed by such approval lacks legitimacy and term as non-est and null and void and liable to be quashed. Assessee appeal allowed.

2023 (3) TMI 268 - HC

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

Whether the revision order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is valid when the underlying assessment order is allegedly invalid.
Whether the assessment order passed under Section 153C of the Act is valid in the absence of incriminating material.
Whether the approval under Section 153D was validly granted or was mechanical in nature.
Whether the pendency of a first appeal precludes the invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263.
Whether the absence of a valid show cause notice (SCN) affects the validity of the revision order under Section 263.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of Revision Order under Section 263

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 263 of the Income Tax Act empowers the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) to revise any order if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. However, an order that is void ab initio cannot be revised under this section.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court emphasized that a non-est order cannot be subject to revisionary proceedings under Section 263.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that the underlying assessment order was invalid due to mechanical approval under Section 153D.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that if the foundation of an order is invalid, the superstructure (revision order) must also fall.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court considered arguments regarding the validity of the assessment order and found them compelling, leading to the conclusion that the revision order was invalid.
Conclusions: The revision order under Section 263 was declared null and void.

Issue 2: Validity of Assessment Order under Section 153C

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 153C deals with assessments in cases where documents or assets are seized during a search. The assessment requires incriminating material.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted the absence of incriminating material, which is a prerequisite for a valid assessment under Section 153C.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that the assessment was based on mechanical approval and lacked incriminating evidence.
Application of Law to Facts: The court held that without incriminating material, the assessment order is invalid.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court dismissed the arguments supporting the validity of the assessment due to lack of evidence.
Conclusions: The assessment order under Section 153C was invalid.

Issue 3: Validity of Approval under Section 153D

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 153D requires prior approval from a higher authority for assessments in search cases. The approval must not be mechanical.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the approval was mechanical and lacked application of mind.
Key Evidence and Findings: The approval was granted without proper examination of the draft assessment orders.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied precedents that emphasize the need for a thoughtful approval process.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court rejected the arguments that the approval process was sufficient, citing lack of detailed examination.
Conclusions: The approval under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment order non-est.

Issue 4: Impact of Pending First Appeal on Revisionary Jurisdiction

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: A pending appeal can limit the PCIT's power to revise an order under Section 263.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the existence of a pending appeal affects the jurisdiction under Section 263.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court acknowledged the pending appeal, which precluded revision.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that revision cannot proceed when an appeal is pending.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court found the arguments against revision compelling due to the pending appeal.
Conclusions: The revision order was invalid due to the pending appeal.

Issue 5: Validity of Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 263

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: A valid SCN is required for proceedings under Section 263.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the SCN was not validly issued, affecting the revision order's validity.
Key Evidence and Findings: The SCN lacked essential details and was not properly served.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that a valid SCN is necessary for jurisdiction under Section 263.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court dismissed the arguments supporting the SCN's validity due to procedural lapses.
Conclusions: The SCN was invalid, affecting the revision order's legality.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "A non-est and void order cannot be subject matter to the revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act."
Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces that mechanical approvals under Section 153D invalidate assessment orders, and such orders cannot be revised under Section 263.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The revision order under Section 263 was declared null and void due to the invalidity of the underlying assessment order, mechanical approval under Section 153D, and the pending appeal.

The appeals were allowed, and the revision orders were quashed.

← Previous Next →