2022 (7) TMI 597 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - whether the parties to whom cash payments were made were milk producers and were covered by circumstances sated in clause(e)(ii) of Rule 6DD of Income Tax Rules? - HELD THAT - It is abundantly clear from para No.3 and 4 of assessment order that regarding excess payment of Rs.20,000/-, each and every document were there before the assessing officer and assessing officer examined them and has taken a possible view, therefore, assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 18.03.2016, is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. As in view of settled legal position with regard to invoking of section 263 of the Act, 1961, we are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal so as to give rise to any question of law much-less any substantial question of law as proposed or otherwise.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not giving a finding on the applicability of Explanation-2 to section 263 of the Act?

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed an appeal challenging the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 2010-2011. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) passed an order under section 263, deeming the assessment order erroneous due to cash payments exceeding Rs.20,000 to traders of milk. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the Assessing Officer conducted detailed inquiries and accepted the claim that the transactions were not in violation of the Act. The Tribunal found that the order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue's interest, as the payments were made to milk producers and covered by an exception in Rule 6DD.

2. The Tribunal examined the documents submitted during reassessment proceedings and found that the Assessing Officer had considered all relevant details before making the assessment order. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The Tribunal noted that each party receiving cash payments was a milk producer, and the payments were mainly made by cheque, with only a small portion in cash, meeting the exception under Rule 6DD. The Tribunal upheld that the Assessing Officer's decision was reasonable and not in violation of the Act.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer had all necessary documents and confirmations during the assessment stage, including declarations, identity proofs, and account copies of the milk producers. The Tribunal reviewed the details of cash payments exceeding Rs.20,000 and concluded that the Assessing Officer's decision to allow the payments was correct. The Tribunal found no error in the assessment order and dismissed the Tax Appeal, stating that there was no substantial question of law arising from the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to quash the order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was justified, as the Assessing Officer had conducted thorough inquiries and the assessment order was found to be correct and not prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The Tribunal's analysis of the applicability of Rule 6DD and the Assessing Officer's actions supported the dismissal of the Tax Appeal.