2022 (5) TMI 228 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Validity of search proceedings return of income was filed by the assessee u/s.153A - as per CIT Satisfaction that the approval given under section 153D was also erroneous,while revising the order passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) - HELD THAT - Incriminating document found and seized in the course of the search proceedings from the residential premises of Dr. Chandrashekhar Pakhmude (supra) read a/w the latters statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act in the course of the search proceedings referred to a cash payment of Rs.70 lacs (supra) over and above those made through cheque, the Assessing Officer had vide his letter dated 12.10.2017 called upon the assessee to put forth an explanation as to why the aforesaid amount may not be added to his unaccounted income for the respective years When the Assessing Officer after exhaustive deliberations had accepted the explanation of the assessee and refrained from drawing any adverse inferences in its hand qua the issue in question i.e. contents of the seized loose sheet No.50/Bundle No.1, therefore, the Pr. CIT in the garb of exercise of his revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act could not have sought for substitution of his view as against that arrived at by the Assessing Officer. We, thus, not being able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the exercise of the revisionary jurisdiction by the Pr. CIT u/s.263 of the Act set-aside his order and restore the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the revision order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 on the basis of change of opinion.
2. Requirement for the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax to record satisfaction regarding the approval given under section 153D while revising the order under section 153A read with section 143(3).
3. Legality of the revision order passed without referring to the relevant clause of Explanation 2.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the revision order under section 263 on the basis of change of opinion:
The assessee challenged the revision order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under section 263, arguing it was based on a change of opinion. The Pr. CIT observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to consider certain cash receipts while framing the assessment, which rendered the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessee contended that the AO had framed the assessment after due application of mind and detailed verification, including cross-examination of Dr. Chandrashekhar Pakhmude, who retracted his earlier statement under section 132(4) of the Act. The Tribunal found that the AO had deliberated at length on the issue of the impugned cash payment and accepted the assessee's explanation, thus precluding the Pr. CIT from substituting his view under the guise of revisional jurisdiction.

2. Requirement to record satisfaction regarding the approval given under section 153D:
The assessee argued that the Pr. CIT, while revising the order under section 263, was required to record satisfaction that the approval given under section 153D was erroneous. The Tribunal did not specifically address this contention in detail but focused on the broader issue of whether the AO had already considered and deliberated upon the relevant facts and evidence during the original assessment proceedings. Since the AO had conducted a thorough examination, the Tribunal concluded that the Pr. CIT's revisionary action was unwarranted.

3. Legality of the revision order without referring to the relevant clause of Explanation 2:
The assessee contended that the revision order was illegal and bad in law as the Pr. CIT did not refer to the relevant clause of Explanation 2. The Tribunal's analysis revealed that the AO had extensively deliberated on the seized document and the statements of Dr. Chandrashekhar Pakhmude, ultimately accepting the assessee's explanation. Given this thorough examination, the Tribunal determined that the Pr. CIT's revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 was improperly invoked, as it sought to substitute the AO's plausible view with his own.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the Pr. CIT's order under section 263 and restored the AO's original assessment order, concluding that the AO had conducted a comprehensive examination of the relevant issues, and the Pr. CIT's revision was an improper substitution of the AO's plausible view. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the grounds of appeal were decided in favor of the assessee. The general ground of appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The Tribunal pronounced the order in the open court on April 29, 2022.