2015 (6) TMI 365 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of revision u/s 263 - the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 147/148 set aside by ld. CIT holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue - Held that - The record that the assessee had already filed the return of income despite that she has been wrongly accused of not filing the same; this subjected the assessee to rigor of avoidable 148 proceedings. The record and submissions filed during the course of assessment proceedings did not in any manner indicate that proper enquiries and verification were not conducted. The order of the AO though short yet crisp and clear in arriving at proper findings reflecting reasonable discharge of assessment which cannot be held as erroneous. In our considered view, the case laws cited by the ld. AR in the case of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto Ltd. (2009 (9) TMI 633 - Delhi High Court), Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007 (11) TMI 12 - Supreme Court of India) support assessee s contentions. We are of view that 263 proceedings cannot be invoked where reasonable inquiries are conducted with application of mind; there is conspicuous difference between the cases of lack of enquiry and perception about the level of enquiry. In this case it emerges that ld. CIT carried a different perception about the manner of enquiry which ought to have been conducted by the AO; however it is not sufficient to hold the assessment order as erroneous and thereby prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The plethora of case laws cited by the assessee do not support such type of exercise of power u/s 263 of the Act. Hence 263 order holding the AO s order as erroneous cannot be sustained merely because the ld. CIT holds different plausible view about manner of inquiry. Consequently, we are unable to uphold the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act passed by the ld. CIT which is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of revision order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Legitimacy of the reassessment order under Sections 147/148.
3. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's (AO) inquiries and investigations.
4. The Commissioner of Income Tax's (CIT) view on the AO's assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
5. The distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee challenged the revision order passed by the CIT under Section 263, contending that the reassessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The CIT had set aside the AO's reassessment order on the grounds that it was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest due to inadequate inquiries and investigations.

2. Legitimacy of the Reassessment Order Under Sections 147/148:
The AO issued a notice under Section 148 based on the information that the assessee had invested Rs. 68.00 lacs in NABARD Bonds, assuming the assessee had not filed a return of income. The assessee had indeed filed the return, and the AO's reassessment accepted the assessee's claim of Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) after due inquiries and verification, including issuing letters under Section 133(6) to verify the transactions.

3. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's (AO) Inquiries and Investigations:
The CIT argued that the AO did not conduct proper inquiries, particularly regarding the sale/transfer of shares, the identity and creditworthiness of the purchaser, and the genuineness of the sale price. The assessee contended that all necessary documents were submitted, and the AO conducted sufficient inquiries, as evidenced by the reassessment order.

4. The Commissioner of Income Tax's (CIT) View on the AO's Assessment as Erroneous and Prejudicial to the Interest of the Revenue:
The CIT held that the AO's failure to verify critical aspects such as the date and cost of acquisition of shares and the creditworthiness of the purchaser rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The CIT relied on various judicial precedents to support the position that inadequate inquiries by the AO justify revision under Section 263.

5. The Distinction Between Lack of Inquiry and Inadequate Inquiry:
The assessee's counsel argued that the AO had conducted reasonable inquiries, and the CIT's different perception of the inquiry's adequacy did not justify invoking Section 263. The counsel cited several judicial decisions, emphasizing that the revision power under Section 263 is not meant for roving inquiries or to impose the CIT's view on the AO's assessment process.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed the return of income and that the AO had conducted reasonable inquiries and verification during the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the CIT's different perception of the inquiry's adequacy did not make the AO's order erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The Tribunal quashed the CIT's order under Section 263, holding that the reassessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Order Pronounced:
The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and the revision order under Section 263 is quashed. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 29.5.2015.