2025 (4) TMI 25 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of Revision u/s 263 - PCIT observed that the AO has not done verification whether Section 69 is applicable or not? - HELD THAT - Applicability of Section 69 first condition is to satisfy that investment was not recorded in the books but second condition was not satisfied as the assessee explained sources of the investment in answer to Question No. 5 of 1st statement recorded during survey on 28-8-2018. Thus the allegation of ld. PCIT about non-verification of required details is completely incorrect. AO during survey did not find any adverse material controverting the explanation of assessee about the source of investment and thus the AO was satisfied by considering the reply of the assessee. Difference amount in valuation report and the amount surrendered during the survey is Rs.59, 343/- wherein the ld. PCIT took only Rs.12, 143/-. It is noted that there were wrong calculation of difference in valuation report and the amount recorded in the books and thus the amount offered for tax is Rs.12, 143/-. The surrender was based on the valuer s report which is purely on estimate basis. This amount is a very petty amount and it can be understood that such petty expenses has no relevance which can be part and parcel of cost of construction work. Calculation of ESI late deposited for the month of May July November and January - PCIT had made wrong calculation of Rs.17, 298/- instead of actual amount Rs.9, 819/-. Disallowance of late payment of ESI/PF cannot be made and the same is verified by the AO during assessment proceedings for which the assessee has relied upon above mentioned decisions on the issue of ESI/PF.Thus the order of the AO in this issue is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Invocation of provision of Section 115BBE of the Act it is noted that source of the investments were explained by the assessee which had been verified by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. It is noted that the year of investment is not identified and even the quantum is also not identified and thus it is not prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We also found that the show cause notice issued and consequential revenue order passed u/s 263 of the Act passed by the ld.PCIT is based on assumption and presumption which does not indicate that the order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hence in view of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case we do not concur with the findings of the ld.PCIT. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

• Whether the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was justified.
• Whether the assessment order dated 20.09.2021 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, warranting revision under Section 263.
• Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to verify the sources of unexplained investment and the applicability of Section 69 and Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
• Whether the late payment of Employee State Insurance (ESI) contributions should have been disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Initiation of Proceedings under Section 263

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 263 of the Income Tax Act empowers the PCIT to revise any order passed by the AO if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal considered whether the PCIT correctly invoked Section 263 by examining if the AO's order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and verifications, and thus, the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 was not justified.

2. Alleged Errors in the Assessment Order

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The PCIT alleged that the AO failed to correctly apply provisions related to unexplained investments under Section 69 and tax them under Section 115BBE.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The AO had verified the sources of investment during the assessment proceedings, and the investments were explained by the assessee.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal noted that the AO had satisfied the conditions for not invoking Section 69, as the sources of investment were explained.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, as the AO had conducted proper inquiries and verifications.

3. Late Payment of ESI Contributions

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act pertains to the disallowance of late payments of employee contributions to ESI.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The PCIT's calculation of late ESI payments was incorrect, and the actual amount was verified to be lower.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal referenced jurisdictional precedents allowing deductions for late ESI payments made before the due date of filing returns.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal found that the AO's decision on ESI contributions was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Core Principles Established: The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of the PCIT to base revisions under Section 263 on concrete evidence of error and prejudice to revenue, rather than assumptions or incorrect calculations.
• Final Determinations: The Tribunal quashed the order passed under Section 263, as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
• Verbatim Quote: "The show cause notice issued and consequential revenue order passed u/s 263 of the Act passed by the ld.PCIT is based on assumption and presumption which does not indicate that the order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue."

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the order of the PCIT and upholding the original assessment order as passed by the AO. The judgment underscores the importance of thorough verification and evidence-based decision-making in tax assessments and revisions.