9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 1237 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - difference between no enquiry and lack of enquiry - HELD THAT - All issues are share application money/share premium, transactions with related parties specified u/s 40A(2) of the Act, expenditure on account of freight and octroy/clearing and sawing, security premium reserve and verification of sundry creditors/sundry debtors were examined by Ld. AO and decided in favour of assessee in original assessment proceedings. PCIT had no where found any flaw in the documents. PCIT had not undertaken any enquiry or given reasons for coming to conclusion that assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. Explanation 2 to section 263 of the act does not give unfettered power to Ld. PCIT to revise each and every order to re-examine the issues already examined by the AO during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio . Consequently, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.Assessee s appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Share application money/share premium. 2. Transactions with related parties specified under Section 40A(2) of the Act. 3. Expenditure on account of freight and octroi/clearing and sawing. 4. Security premium reserve. 5. Verification of sundry creditors/sundry debtors. 6. General principles regarding the invocation of Section 263 of the Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Share Application Money/Share Premium: The assessee contended that the issue of share application money/share premium was examined by the Assessing Officer (AO) during the original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) issued a show-cause notice under Section 263, questioning the genuineness of the transactions involving share application money/share premium from three companies, which appeared to be shell companies. The PCIT did not find any flaw in the documents provided by the assessee but still set aside the assessment order for re-examination. 2. Transactions with Related Parties Specified Under Section 40A(2) of the Act: The assessee argued that the transactions with related parties specified under Section 40A(2)(b) were scrutinized and allowed by the AO. The PCIT, however, issued a show-cause notice under Section 263, raising concerns about the payment of remuneration to directors and other related party transactions. The PCIT did not undertake any further enquiry but directed the AO to re-examine these transactions. 3. Expenditure on Account of Freight and Octroi/Clearing and Sawing: The assessee maintained that the expenditure on freight and octroi/clearing and sawing was examined and allowed by the AO. The PCIT issued a show-cause notice under Section 263, questioning the increase in expenditure on these accounts. The PCIT did not find any specific discrepancies in the documents provided but still directed the AO to re-assess this expenditure. 4. Security Premium Reserve: The assessee contended that the issue of security premium reserve was examined by the AO during the original assessment. The PCIT issued a show-cause notice under Section 263, questioning the genuineness of the security premium reserve. Despite the assessee providing all relevant documents, the PCIT did not undertake any further enquiry but directed the AO to re-examine this issue. 5. Verification of Sundry Creditors/Sundry Debtors: The assessee argued that the verification of sundry creditors and sundry debtors was carried out by the AO. The PCIT issued a show-cause notice under Section 263, questioning the verification process of these accounts. The PCIT did not find any specific issues in the documents provided by the assessee but still directed the AO to re-assess these accounts. 6. General Principles Regarding the Invocation of Section 263 of the Act: The assessee cited several judicial pronouncements, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, which clearly states that for the PCIT to invoke jurisdiction under Section 263, two conditions must be satisfied: the order must be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The assessee argued that the PCIT did not undertake any minimal enquiry to establish that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The PCIT merely directed the AO to re-examine the issues without providing specific reasons or findings. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that all the issues raised by the PCIT were already examined by the AO during the original assessment proceedings. The PCIT did not find any specific flaws in the documents provided by the assessee and did not undertake any further enquiry to establish that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the PCIT's order was set aside. Order Pronounced: The assessee's appeal is allowed, and the order was pronounced on the 23rd day of August, 2024.
|
