9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1339 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - order prejudicial or erroneous to the interest of revenue - Held that - Except stating that the assessee has not furnished any details before the Assessing Officer the Assessing Officer without conducting proper investigation and without proper application of mind accepted the claims of the assessee and therefore order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue the Ld.PCIT could not demonstrate or give proper reasons as to how the Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. PCIT has failed to show that the impugned Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It is an established proposition of law that both the conditions i.e. erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue are required to be satisfied for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. In the instant case we are of the view that the Ld.PCIT has failed to show that both the conditions exist. In the circumstances we find merit in the contentions of the assessee that the revision order passed by the Ld.PCIT for the year under consideration is beyond the scope of section 263 and hence not valid. In the circumstances we set-aside the order of the Ld.PCIT and allow the grounds of the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the ex-parte order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether the Assessing Officer's (AO) order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3. Examination of the assessment records and the application of mind by the AO. 4. Basis of the PCIT's decision to issue notice under Section 263. 5. Adequacy of the AO's investigation and verification of details during the assessment proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Ex-Parte Order Passed by the PCIT: The assessee contended that the PCIT erred in framing an ex-parte order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, despite the assessee attending the hearing and submitting a letter on the appointed day. The PCIT's order was challenged on the grounds that it was passed without examining the assessment records, which were not available at the time of issuing the notice under Section 263. 2. Whether the AO's Order was Erroneous and Prejudicial to the Interest of the Revenue: The PCIT held that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue because it was passed without conducting a proper investigation and without proper application of mind. The PCIT based this conclusion on the fact that the AO had accepted the details furnished by the assessee without making any disallowances or additions, unlike in the preceding Assessment Year 2012-13. 3. Examination of the Assessment Records and Application of Mind by the AO: The assessee argued that the AO had called for and verified all relevant details during the assessment proceedings, including sales and purchases, major expenses, and assets and liabilities. The AO had concluded that the maintenance of books of accounts and supporting evidence was in accordance with the return of income. The Tribunal noted that the original assessment records were not traceable and had been partially reconstructed based on information furnished by the assessee after the completion of the assessment. 4. Basis of the PCIT's Decision to Issue Notice Under Section 263: The PCIT's decision to issue a notice under Section 263 was primarily based on the assessment order for the preceding Assessment Year 2012-13, where the AO had made certain disallowances and additions. The Tribunal found that the PCIT did not independently examine the records or conduct any minimal enquiry to reach a conclusion that the AO's order for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 5. Adequacy of the AO's Investigation and Verification of Details During the Assessment Proceedings: The Tribunal observed that the AO had given a categorical finding that the assessee maintained all relevant books of accounts and supporting evidence, which were audited and verified during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the PCIT's observation that there were no details of verification/examination of the nature and genuineness of the expenses/claims made by the assessee was misplaced, as voluminous details were furnished before the AO and examined during the assessment proceedings. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT failed to demonstrate that the AO's order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that both conditions must be satisfied for invoking the provisions of Section 263. The Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and allowed the assessee's appeal, stating that the revision order passed by the PCIT was beyond the scope of Section 263 and hence not valid. Order: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on the 20th December 2017.
|
