2023 (10) TMI 196 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - As per CIT AO has not verified the creditworthiness of the creditors - HELD THAT - As seen from the Record that the Ld. A.O., during the Assessment proceedings not only called for the record from the Assessee to submit, issued the questioners to the Assessee, but also issued Notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the firms from whom the Assessee had the transactions calling upon them to produce the Balance sheet, Ledger and the ITR for the purpose of verifying the creditworthiness of the creditors. The said details were made available to the AO by the Creditors and also the Assessee respectively. A.O. not only made detail enquiry with the Assessee but also by issuing the Notice under Section 133(6) of the Act to the Creditors and after obtaining the details and convincing himself, found that the Creditors are genuine and passed the Assessment Order in-favour of the Assessee. There was no material brought by the Pr. CIT to observe that no verification was made during the course of the assessment by the A.O. On the other hand, it is seen from the record that, the Ld. A.O. has made detailed enquiry, considered all evidence and arrive to a conclusion to accepted the income declared by the Assessee. Thus, in our opinion, the Pr. CIT has only expressed the different view which is not permissible u/s 263 - Revisionary power u/s 263 of the Act is conferred by the Act on the Commissioner when an order is passed by the Authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, but which are passed after inquiry/investigation on the question/issue are not per se are normally treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Because, the Revisionary Authority feels and opines that further inquiry/investigation was required or deeper or further scrutiny should be undertaken, the same cannot be initiated without following the proper provisions u/s 263 of the Act. The decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd 2007 (11) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT are aptly applicable in the present case as the Hon ble Apex Court wherein it is held that Section 263 has to be read in conjunction with the expression erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the assessing officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - Appeal of assessee allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this legal judgment include the jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, the verification of creditworthiness of creditors, the reliance on assessment reports, the necessity of independent inquiry, and the correctness of the assessment order.

Jurisdiction of Principal Commissioner under Section 263:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The appellant contended that the Principal Commissioner erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 to substitute his subjective view for the judicious view taken by the Assessing Officer. The appellant argued that the assessment was passed after due enquiry and verification, making the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 unsustainable.

Verification of Creditworthiness of Creditors:
The Principal Commissioner alleged that the Assessing Officer had not verified the creditworthiness of the creditors, leading to the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. However, it was argued by the appellant that the sums were received through banking channels with complete evidence provided during the assessment, and proper enquiries were made, including issuing notices under section 133(6) of the Act to the firms involved. The appellant contended that the order was not erroneous and the creditworthiness of the creditors was duly verified.

Reliance on Assessment Reports and Independent Inquiry:
The Principal Commissioner relied on a report obtained during the revision proceedings, where the Assessing Officer did not conduct an independent inquiry but relied on other cases. The appellant argued that this reliance was erroneous and unsustainable in law. It was contended that the Assessing Officer had made detailed enquiries, considered all evidence, and arrived at a reasoned assessment order. The appellant emphasized that the Commissioner did not have the authority to initiate further inquiry when the Assessing Officer had already conducted a thorough investigation.

Correctness of Assessment Order:
The legal dispute centered on whether the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue, warranting intervention under section 263. The appellant maintained that the order was not erroneous as it was based on proper enquiry and verification, and the Principal Commissioner's decision to direct a fresh assessment was without basis and bad in law. The appellant's arguments were supported by legal precedents emphasizing that not every loss of revenue constitutes an order prejudicial to revenue, especially when the Assessing Officer has taken a permissible course of action within the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order passed under section 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, as the Assessing Officer had conducted thorough inquiries and passed a reasoned assessment order, rendering the intervention under section 263 unwarranted.