2022 (3) TMI 832 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT - We find that the assessee has complied with the statutory notice u/sec 148 and 142(1) of the Act and the show cause notice. The submissions of the Ld. AR are realistic duly supported with the material information and judicial decisions. We Considering the overall facts, circumstances, ratio of the judicial decision and the details submitted in the course of hearing are of the view that the if any query is raised in the assessement proceedings and it was responded by the assessee, mere fact that it is not dealt within by the A.O. in the order cannot implied that there is no application of mind. Hence, the PCIT action cannot be acceptable as the order passed by the A.O. does not satisfy the twin conditions of erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly we do not find any merits in the order and we set aside the order u/s 263 passed by the Pr.CIT and allow the grounds of appeal of in favour of the assessee.

Issues:
1. Validity of the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Jurisdiction of the PCIT to pass the impugned order.
3. Direction by the PCIT to add undisclosed income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Compliance with statutory notices and show cause notices by the assessee.
5. Application of mind by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order.

Issue 1: Validity of PCIT's Order under Section 263:
The appellant challenged the order of the PCIT under section 263, contending that the assessment order by the Assessing Officer was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interests. The PCIT set aside the original assessment order, directing the Assessing Officer to frame a fresh assessment. The appellant argued that the PCIT did not consider all facts and materials already reviewed by the Assessing Officer, making the PCIT's order legally flawed. The Tribunal analyzed similar cases and emphasized that for the PCIT to revise an assessment under section 263, both conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue must be met. As the Assessing Officer had issued a questionnaire and the assessee had responded, the Tribunal found that the PCIT wrongly assumed revisional jurisdiction, as the twin conditions were not satisfied.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of PCIT to Pass the Impugned Order:
The appellant further contended that the PCIT lacked jurisdiction to pass the order under section 263, as the Assessing Officer had already considered the disputed issues and the matter was pending appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the PCIT's order was based on the same material reviewed by the Assessing Officer, and the PCIT's intervention was deemed unnecessary. The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order lacked merit as the Assessing Officer had duly applied his mind to the issues raised, and the jurisdiction of the PCIT to revise the assessment was not justified.

Issue 3: Direction to Add Undisclosed Income under Section 68:
The PCIT directed the Assessing Officer to add a sum as undisclosed income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, representing the purchase price of shares incurred in the earlier year. The appellant argued against this direction, stating that the PCIT's order did not meet the conditions of being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The Tribunal examined the details submitted during the hearing and found that the Assessing Officer had appropriately considered the facts and applied his mind to the issue, rendering the PCIT's direction unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order regarding the addition of undisclosed income under section 68.

Issue 4: Compliance with Statutory Notices and Show Cause Notices:
The Tribunal noted that the appellant had diligently complied with the statutory notices and show cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had issued notices and the appellant had responded, providing detailed information and submissions. The Tribunal found that the appellant's compliance with the statutory procedures indicated due diligence on the part of the assessee, further supporting the argument against the PCIT's order under section 263.

Issue 5: Application of Mind by the Assessing Officer:
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the Assessing Officer's application of mind in the assessment order. It noted that the Assessing Officer had issued a questionnaire, received responses from the assessee, and made additions based on the facts presented. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had examined the documents and accepted the explanations provided by the assessee, indicating a reasonable application of mind. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the PCIT's intervention based on the lack of examination of certain transactions was unwarranted, as the Assessing Officer had appropriately dealt with the issues in the assessment order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the PCIT's order under section 263 and ruling in favor of the assessee on all grounds.

← Previous Next →