9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 240 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - CIT jurisdiction to revise the order passed by the A.O u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A - AO had short assessed the assessee s income by restricting the addition u/s 68 as regards the bogus transactions of sale of shares only to the extent of the capital gain instead of the alleged sale proceeds credited in his bank account; and short assessed the addition u/s 69C as regards the commission alleged to have been paid by the assessee to accommodation entry providers to facilitate the bogus sale transactions by quantifying the same on the basis of the capital gain and not the amount of sale consideration - HELD THAT - As both the issues in question on the basis of which the Pr.CIT had assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act had been considered and decided in appeal by the CIT(A), therefore, the Pr.CIT was clearly divested of his jurisdiction to have exercised the revisional jurisdiction vested with him u/s 263 of the Act as regards the said issues. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations set-aside the order passed by the Pr.CIT u/s 263 and restore the order passed by the A.O u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A.- Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the Pr.CIT can revise an assessment order under Section 263 when the issues have already been considered and decided by the appellate authority (CIT(A)). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Jurisdiction Assumed by the Pr.CIT under Section 263: The primary issue addressed in the judgment is the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the Pr.CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee challenged the Pr.CIT's order, arguing that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer (A.O) had already been considered and decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The assessee contended that the Pr.CIT exceeded his jurisdiction by revising the assessment order on matters that had already been adjudicated by the CIT(A). 2. Revisional Jurisdiction Post Appellate Consideration: The judgment delves into the applicability of "Explanation 1(c)" to sub-section (1) of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, which restricts the revisional jurisdiction of the Pr.CIT to matters not considered and decided in an appeal. The assessee's argument was backed by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s. Ranka Jewellers v. Addl. CIT & Anr., which held that the Pr.CIT cannot extend his revisional jurisdiction to issues already decided in appeal. Detailed Analysis: Assessment and Appeal Background: The assessee had claimed exemption under Section 10(38) for Long Term Capital Gain on the sale of shares, which was disallowed by the A.O, who treated the capital gain as unexplained credit under Section 68. The CIT(A) later deleted this addition, granting the benefit of unrecorded sales of the group company. The Pr.CIT, however, revised the assessment order, arguing that the A.O had erroneously restricted the addition under Section 68 to the capital gain instead of the entire sale consideration and had incorrectly quantified the commission paid for availing accommodation entries. Arguments and Counterarguments: The assessee's Authorized Representative (A.R) argued that the issues revised by the Pr.CIT had already been considered and decided by the CIT(A), thus falling outside the Pr.CIT's revisional jurisdiction as per "Explanation 1(c)" to Section 263(1). The Departmental Representative (D.R) countered that the Pr.CIT had rightly assumed jurisdiction, emphasizing that the appeal was devoid of merit. Tribunal's Observations: The Tribunal examined the scope of Section 263, emphasizing the doctrine of merger, which limits the revisional authority's jurisdiction once an issue has been adjudicated by an appellate authority. The Tribunal cited several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd., which clarified that the Pr.CIT's powers under Section 263 are restricted to matters not considered and decided in appeal. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Pr.CIT had overstepped his jurisdiction by revising the assessment order on issues already decided by the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Pr.CIT's order and restored the original assessment order passed by the A.O. Application to Other Appeals: The Tribunal applied the same reasoning to other related appeals for different assessment years, quashing the respective orders passed by the Pr.CIT under Section 263 and allowing the appeals filed by the assessee. Result: The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the orders passed by the Pr.CIT under Section 263 were quashed. The original assessment orders were restored.
|
