9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 421 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - second revision order - assessment has been set aside or de novo assessment - sending of the proposal by the successor-Assessing Officer - As per CIT assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for want of proper enquiries on the part of the AO while framing the assessment on various issues viz. share application money including the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers, charging of interest u/s 201(1A), rental income from the vehicles and depreciation thereupon - HELD THAT - In this case, the earlier assessment order was set aside for de novo assessment which means that all the issues were open before the AO - The assessee, under the circumstances, was entitled to furnish explanations and evidences on each of the issue that was open before the AO and in relation to which the details were called upon by the AO. There was neither any statutory power nor otherwise any other law requiring the Assessing Officer to only enhance or assess the same income which was earlier assessed. Such a proposition would be against the spirit of the law. When an assessment has been set aside or de novo assessment, all the issues in the assessment are open before the AO, assessee as well also gets the right to plead, explain and furnish evidence on each of the issues. The outcome of the fresh assessment order is neither dependent nor can be based on the earlier assessment order which has been held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. If in the outcome of the fresh assessment order, the resultant assessed income is less than the earlier assessed income, the said order, by any fiction of law, cannot be termed as erroneous. In the case in hand, AO noting that in the fresh assessment proceedings, the assessed income of the assessee would be less than the earlier assessment income, sought necessary directions from the ld. PCIT-4, Kolkata in this respect and the ld. PCIT-4, Kolkata after considering this aspect has categorically directed the Assessing Officer that if after making necessary enquiries/verifications, even if the assessed income was coming out to be less than the earlier assessed income, he should pass the order accordingly. AO after getting the aforesaid directions, passed the impugned order. Thereafter , sending of the proposal by the successor-Assessing Officer on the ground that the income assessed vide subsequent assessment order was less than the income assessed vide earlier assessment order in itself, was a wrong and illegal proposal and the subsequent action of the ld. PCIT, in exercise of revision jurisdiction on the said proposal, cannot be held to be justified. Moreover, the assessee has already been subjected to two assessment proceedings, wherein, the assessee had already furnished necessary details and evidences and under the circumstances, the assessee cannot be burdened with further assessment proceedings on the same issue, by way of reopening of the assessment only on the ground that the certain more enquiries are required to be made by the Assessing Officer. Such an action cannot be held to be justified as under such circumstances, there will be no finality of the assessment and every time, the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer could be subjected to revision order by the ld. PCIT alleging that more enquiries are needed. The assessment cannot be kept open in perpetuity. There must be some finality to the proceedings. For exercising of revision jurisdiction for the second time or thereafter, there must be mention of specific and strong grounds warranting such revision of assessment order. The revision jurisdiction for want of mere enquiries cannot be exercised at the whims and wishes of the PCIT. Since, in the case in hand also, the impugned assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer after getting approval of the then PCIT-4, Kolkata, therefore, merely because of successor-PCIT-4, Kolkata did not agree with his predecessor, that does give him right to exercise his revision jurisdiction which would amount to questioning the wisdom of his predecessor, who has not found any fault with the assessment order in question. Such a course of action would, in our view, is impermissible in law. In view of this, the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act, in our view, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly quashed. Appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether the assessment order dated 17.01.2017 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3. The scope and implications of de novo assessment. Summary: 1. Validity of the Revision Order Passed by PCIT: The assessee contested the validity of the revision order dated 14.03.2019 passed by the PCIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The original scrutiny assessment for AY 2012-13 was completed on 19.12.2014, assessing the income at Rs. 5,05,50,540/-. The PCIT exercised revision jurisdiction under section 263, observing that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue due to lack of proper enquiries on several issues. A subsequent assessment was carried out under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263, assessing the income at Rs. 71,41,040/-. 2. Whether the Assessment Order Dated 17.01.2017 was Erroneous and Prejudicial to the Interest of the Revenue: The DCIT proposed that since the assessed income in the revised order was less than the earlier assessed income, the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The PCIT, agreeing with this proposal, again exercised revision jurisdiction under section 263, stating that any order passed subsequent to an order under section 263 must be in favor of the Revenue, either enhancing or maintaining the earlier assessed income but not reducing it. 3. The Scope and Implications of De Novo Assessment: The Tribunal held that in a de novo assessment, all issues are open before the Assessing Officer, and the assessee is entitled to furnish explanations and evidence on each issue. The outcome of the fresh assessment cannot be dependent on the earlier assessment order, which was held to be erroneous. The Tribunal observed that there is no statutory power requiring the Assessing Officer to only enhance or maintain the earlier assessed income. The Tribunal further noted that the impugned assessment order was passed after obtaining approval from the PCIT, and the successor PCIT's disagreement with his predecessor does not justify exercising revision jurisdiction again. The Tribunal referenced the case of "Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT" where it was held that once an assessment order is passed with the approval of the CIT, the successor CIT cannot claim it was decided without application of mind. The Tribunal concluded that the revision jurisdiction for want of mere enquiries cannot be exercised at the whims and wishes of the PCIT, and there must be finality to the assessment proceedings. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the impugned order passed under section 263 of the Act, holding it unsustainable in law, and allowed the appeal of the assessee.
|
