2024 (3) TMI 523 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - As per CIT huge shortage of PNG claimed by the assessee @ 49.26% of the total purchases of PNG - CIT primarily held that AO has not made proper inquiry - HELD THAT - During the hearing, A.R. submitted that the details relating to claim of furnishing of PNG was accepted by the Revenue in the earlier assessment as well as in the subsequent assessment years. The assessee is following this as per his business exigencies and therefore there is a shortage of PNG for the assessee not only has given the explanation during the assessment proceedings but also filed the details such as the billing cycle of each house except any few cases as well as consumption which differs from particular family to any other family. This was also reflected in cost audit report which was allowed by the Revenue in earlier assessment year and subsequent assessment year as well. AO has taken cognizance of the records of the assessee such as the details of the consumption units and its audit report along with the submissions of the assessee during assessment proceedings. Thus, this cannot be called as limited verification of the factual aspect of the assessee s claim. Besides this, the Pr. CIT has not demonstrated in the revisionary power as to how this assessment order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. When the assessee has given all the details which are substantial for the claim of shortage of PNG, the Pr. CIT has observed contrary without giving any specific observation to that effect of the evidences produced during assessment proceedings. Assessee appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues in this case involve the invocation of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) to set aside the assessment passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C, directing to frame a fresh assessment, and determining the correctness of the assessment order.

Issue 1: Invocation of Section 263:
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoked section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, setting aside the assessment passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C. This was done on the grounds of the assessment being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue due to the huge shortage of piped natural gas (PNG) claimed by the assessee.

Issue 2: Fresh Assessment Direction:
The PCIT directed to frame a fresh assessment order despite the issue of shortage of PNG being already considered and verified during the initial assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. The PCIT held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, necessitating a fresh assessment.

Issue 3: Correctness of Assessment Order:
The appellant contended that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue as claimed by the PCIT. The appellant argued that detailed reasons and evidence were provided during the assessment proceedings to justify the shortage of PNG, including submission of a cost audit report certifying the sales and cost of sales.

In the appeal, the appellant's representative argued that the Assessing Officer had properly verified the details regarding the shortage of PNG, and the change of opinion cannot be the basis for revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act. It was emphasized that the comparative shortage details and consumption of natural gas were duly submitted during the assessment.

The Departmental Representative (D.R.) supported the PCIT's decision, citing the lack of details provided by the assessee regarding the shortage of PNG during the assessment proceedings. The D.R. relied on legal precedents to justify the invocation of section 263 and the direction for a fresh assessment order.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellant had provided substantial details and evidence to support the claim of shortage of PNG, which had been accepted in earlier and subsequent assessment years. It was noted that the Assessing Officer had conducted a thorough verification based on the records and submissions of the assessee, contrary to the PCIT's assertion of limited verification.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the PCIT was not justified in invoking revisionary power under section 263 of the Act, and consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

This summary provides a detailed breakdown of the issues involved in the legal judgment, highlighting the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's decision in the case.