2025 (1) TMI 451 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - excess claim of depreciation on the part of the assessee while computing the book profit u/s 115JB - HELD THAT - CIT invoked the provisions of section 263 on the basis of incorrect facts, whereas the claim of depreciation in the return of income filed by the assessee i.e. FDPL was found in order by the Assessing Officer as per the details furnished by the assessee. We also notice that there is no discrepancy in the claim of the assessee in the book depreciation while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act as the amount of claim is same as reflected in the P L Account. All these details were available before the learned Pr. CIT as well as before the AO. However, without considering the facts and details objectively, the learned Pr. CIT has passed the impugned order and directed the Assessing Officer to re-verify the claim of the assessee. It is pertinent to note that as per the order sheet in details and office note of the National E-Assessment Centre, the Regional Assessing Officer of the Assessment Unit has admitted the fact that the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee is not sustainable being passed against the non-existing entity. The impugned order passed by the learned Pr. CIT u/s 263 is based on incorrect facts is not sustainable in law and liable to be quashed.Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment are:

• Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) was justified in invoking Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds of excess depreciation claimed by the assessee.
• Whether the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue due to the alleged lack of inquiry by the Assessing Officer regarding the depreciation claim.
• Whether the order passed against a non-existing entity, due to the merger of the assessee with another company, is valid.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Justification for Invoking Section 263

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 263 of the Income Tax Act empowers the Pr. CIT to revise an assessment order if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Pr. CIT must demonstrate that the order was passed without proper inquiry or verification.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court examined whether the Pr. CIT had a valid basis for initiating proceedings under Section 263, focusing on the alleged excess depreciation claim.
• Key evidence and findings: The Pr. CIT noted a discrepancy between the book depreciation and the depreciation claimed in the Income Tax Return (ITR). However, the assessee provided detailed explanations and reconciliations, showing that the claim was consistent with the revised financial statements post-merger.
• Application of law to facts: The court found that the Pr. CIT's reliance on incorrect figures from the financial statements of the merged entity led to an erroneous conclusion about the excess depreciation claim.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee argued that the depreciation claim was verified during the assessment proceedings, while the Pr. CIT contended there was a lack of inquiry. The court sided with the assessee, noting the Assessing Officer had indeed conducted an inquiry.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the invocation of Section 263 was unjustified as the Pr. CIT based the revision on incorrect facts and figures.

Issue 2: Erroneous and Prejudicial Assessment Order

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: An assessment order can be revised if it is both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The Pr. CIT must establish both conditions.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court scrutinized whether the assessment order met these criteria, particularly focusing on the inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer.
• Key evidence and findings: The court found that the Assessing Officer had issued inquiries and received responses regarding the depreciation claim, indicating that the assessment was not made without due verification.
• Application of law to facts: The court applied the legal standard for revision and found that the assessment order was not erroneous as it was based on verified facts.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued for a lack of inquiry, while the assessee demonstrated that sufficient inquiry was made. The court favored the assessee's position.
• Conclusions: The court held that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

Issue 3: Validity of Order Against a Non-Existing Entity

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: Legal principles dictate that orders against non-existing entities post-merger are invalid, as established in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court considered whether the order against the merged entity was valid.
• Key evidence and findings: The merger was effective from a date prior to the assessment order, rendering the order against the original entity invalid.
• Application of law to facts: The court applied the precedent set by the Supreme Court, confirming that the order was invalid as it was against a non-existent entity.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee argued the order's invalidity due to the merger, while the Revenue did not effectively counter this point.
• Conclusions: The court ruled that the order was invalid due to the merger, aligning with established legal precedent.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The court noted, "The impugned order passed by the learned Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is based on incorrect facts is not sustainable in law and liable to be quashed."
• Core principles established: The court reinforced that orders under Section 263 must be based on accurate facts and proper inquiry. It also reaffirmed the invalidity of orders against non-existing entities post-merger.
• Final determinations on each issue: The court quashed the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263, ruling it unjustified and based on incorrect facts. It also declared the assessment order invalid due to the merger.