2017 (9) TMI 1039 - HC - Income Tax

Scope of revision u/s 263 - order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue - Held that - Without commenting in any manner and concluding that the invocation of the power was justified, the Tribunal has disposed of the matter. In a way it has made a short shrift or resorted to a shortcut. We do not think that this is a satisfactory way of deciding appeals and as a last fact finding authority. It was incumbent on the Tribunal to have gone into the facts and circumstances and equally the legal issue in depth and it could have arrived at a different conclusion or could have maintained the order of the Commissioner but with independent and satisfactory reasons. There being no independent application of mind, we do not think that the initial order can be sustained. Hence, we proceed to admit this appeal on the following substantial questions of law (A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the revision under section 263 of the Income Tax Act of the assessment order was called for? (B) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the revision order passed by the Respondent under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was bad, illegal and without jurisdiction?

Summary

Issues:
1. Tribunal's refusal to correct a mistake in the initial order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance of depreciation claim by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2004-05.
3. Show cause notice issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
4. Tribunal's disposal of the main appeal without proper consideration of the issues raised.
5. Appeal challenging the Tribunal's order dated 19.6.2013.

Issue 1:
The appellant sought correction of a mistake in the initial order by the Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal, however, refused to entertain the request, leading to the appellant's grievance. The High Court observed that the Tribunal's disposal was unsatisfactory as it did not delve into the facts and legal issues in depth, failing to provide independent and satisfactory reasons for its decision. Consequently, the High Court quashed the initial order and the subsequent application under Section 254(2), reviving and restoring the appeal before the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

Issue 2:
The Assessing Officer disallowed the appellant's claim for depreciation for the Assessment Year 2004-05, prompting an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Subsequently, the Commissioner issued a show cause notice under Section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, proposing to revise the assessment order due to alleged failure in making necessary inquiries. The High Court noted that the Tribunal should have determined whether the conditions for invoking Section 263 were met and if the Commissioner's intervention was justified. The Tribunal's failure to provide a detailed analysis led to the quashing of the initial order and a directive for fresh consideration.

Issue 3:
The Commissioner's order under Section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was challenged before the Tribunal. The appellant contended that the Tribunal did not adequately address the fundamental issue raised for consideration. The High Court emphasized the importance of a thorough examination of the facts and legal aspects in such cases. It found the Tribunal's approach lacking in independent application of mind, leading to the quashing of the initial order and a fresh consideration of the appeal.

Issue 4:
The High Court criticized the Tribunal for disposing of the main appeal without proper consideration of the issues raised. It highlighted the Tribunal's duty to thoroughly assess whether the conditions for invoking Section 263 were satisfied and whether the Commissioner's intervention was justified. The lack of detailed analysis and independent reasoning in the Tribunal's decision necessitated the quashing of the initial order and a fresh consideration of the appeal.

Issue 5:
The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law regarding the revision under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and the legality of the revision order passed by the Respondent. It found the manner of disposal of the appeal unsatisfactory, leading to the quashing of the initial order and a directive for fresh consideration of the appeal, uninfluenced by any earlier orders or conclusions. The High Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving it to be decided afresh in accordance with the law.