2016 (11) TMI 292 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of revision orders u/s 263 - Held that - Elaborate enquires were made not only before the assessment proceedings started but also during the course of the assessment proceedings and the assessee has fully complied with all queries raised by the Revenue Authorities. The contention that the present Assessing Officer did not make full enquiry is not acceptable, because when the assessment records were transmitted from one DCIT to another DCIT, the other DCIT was well aware of the queries raised during the course of proceedings. The Officer was also aware of all the replies filed by the assessee, supported by relevant documentary evidences. Considering the facts above the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the Principal CIT u/s 263 and restore that of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-Tax Act.
2. Nature of Transactions in Shares: Business Income vs. Capital Gains.
3. Verification of Unsecured Loan and Source of Funds.
4. Adequacy of Assessment Enquiries.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-Tax Act:
The assessee challenged the Principal CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263, claiming it was "bad in law." The Principal CIT issued a show-cause notice stating that the assessment order was "erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue." The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., which clarified that the Commissioner must be satisfied that the order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the Principal CIT did not meet these twin conditions, thus invalidating the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263.

2. Nature of Transactions in Shares: Business Income vs. Capital Gains:
The Principal CIT argued that the assessee's transactions in shares should be treated as business income rather than capital gains. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided detailed explanations and documentary evidence supporting the transactions as investments. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer had already examined these transactions and accepted them as capital gains. The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT's differing view did not justify the revision of the assessment order under Section 263.

3. Verification of Unsecured Loan and Source of Funds:
The Principal CIT raised concerns about a ?3.4 crore loan from M/s. Sheetal Bio Agrotech Ltd., suggesting it was an unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had already scrutinized the loan during the assessment proceedings, including verifying the source and nature of the funds. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided necessary affidavits and documentary evidence to support the loan's legitimacy. The Tribunal concluded that the Principal CIT's concerns were unfounded as the Assessing Officer had conducted adequate verification.

4. Adequacy of Assessment Enquiries:
The Principal CIT contended that the Assessing Officer failed to make appropriate enquiries, rendering the assessment order erroneous. The Tribunal disagreed, highlighting that extensive enquiries were made during the assessment process. The Tribunal cited the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., which stated that an order is not erroneous merely because it lacks elaborate discussion. The Tribunal further referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., emphasizing that not every loss of revenue constitutes prejudice to the Revenue's interests. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial, as the Assessing Officer had conducted thorough enquiries.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the Principal CIT's order under Section 263, restoring the original assessment order passed under Section 143(3). The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT failed to demonstrate that the assessment order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adequate enquiries and supported the Assessing Officer's findings with relevant judicial precedents. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the Tribunal pronounced the order on 21st October 2016 at Ahmedabad.