2021 (8) TMI 1163 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - inadequate or improper enquiry by the AO - cash deposited in a particular Bank - HELD THAT - AO has examined and verified the IndusInd Bank Account during the assessment stage, thus we note that, Ld. Pr. C.I.T. by invoking his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, is giving another opportunity to the assessing officer to examine it again, which is not permissible. In the case of Ranka Jewellers 2010 (3) TMI 544 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT relying on the decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 2007 (11) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not lie in invoking of the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act Therefore, the order of the Ld. C.I.T. was definitely outside the purview of section 263 of the Act. As noted above, the exercise aimed at ascertaining the correct income of the assessee has been fulfilled by the Ld. A.O. by exercising his quasi-judicial functions vis-a-vis passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, certainly it is not a case wherein adequate enquiries at the assessment stage were not carried out or assessment was made in haste. However, what is an opinion formed as a result of these enquiries and verification of the materials is something which is in exclusive domain of the Assessing Officer, and even if Ld. Pr. Commissioner does not agree with the results of such enquiries, the resultant order cannot be subjected to revision proceedings. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Verification of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the sale of immovable property.
3. Verification of cash deposits in a specific bank account.
4. Adequacy of inquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer (AO).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee contended that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) erroneously assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act on issues not mentioned in the Show Cause Notice. The PCIT's order was challenged as unjust and unlawful. The Tribunal noted that the PCIT exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 due to the AO's failure to verify certain transactions, which rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

2. Verification of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the Sale of Immovable Property:
The PCIT observed that the AO accepted the LTCG declared by the assessee without verifying the sale of another immovable property for ?3,06,00,000/-. The AO did not inquire about this transaction as per the AIR information. The assessee argued that the property was shown in the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, despite the registered sale deed being executed on 13.04.2015. The PCIT found that the property should have been reported in AY 2016-17, as the possession was handed over on the date of the registered sale deed.

3. Verification of Cash Deposits in a Specific Bank Account:
The PCIT noted that the AO did not verify transactions in the Indusind Bank account (A/c No. 159909969836) as the bank statement was received after the assessment order was passed. The PCIT highlighted that the AO failed to verify the source of cash deposits totaling ?1,75,94,227/-. The assessee submitted that the credit entries were related to confirming party profit and included in the return of income. However, the PCIT found no verification of the source of cash deposits by the AO.

4. Adequacy of Inquiries Conducted by the Assessing Officer (AO):
The Tribunal noted that the AO had received and examined the bank statement of the Indusind Bank account before passing the assessment order. The Tribunal found that the AO conducted adequate inquiries and verified the transactions. The Tribunal emphasized that the PCIT's disagreement with the AO's conclusions does not justify invoking Section 263. The Tribunal relied on precedents, including the Bombay High Court's decision in Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT, which held that once the AO has considered an issue, the PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 merely due to a difference in opinion.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the AO's assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order under Section 263, allowing the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal reiterated that the PCIT cannot use Section 263 to give the AO another opportunity to examine issues already verified. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's conclusions based on inquiries are within the AO's exclusive domain, and the PCIT cannot revise the order based on differing perceptions.

← Previous Next →