2025 (4) TMI 597 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - As per CIT AO while completing the assessment has not considered the prior period expenses debited to the Profit and Loss Account and liosoning charges while computing the closing work-in-progress for the year under consideration and no justification for the allowability of these expenses to be added to the work-in-progress has been called by the AO for which work-in-progress is shown at higher figure - HELD THAT - A perusal of the details furnished by the assessee in the paper book shows that he has filed various details substantiating the work-in-progress and the PCIT has neither gone through those details nor made any minimal enquiry and has simply set aside the order passed by the AO. Further by showing the work-in-progress at a higher figure the assessee has shown more profit and paid more taxes meaning thereby there is no loss to the Revenue. Therefore we find merit in the arguments of assessee that although the order may be erroneous but it is definitely not prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. It is the settled proposition of law that for invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act the twin conditions namely the order is erroneous and the order is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue must be satisfied. In the instant case although the order may be erroneous because of non-verification on the part of the AO of work-in-progress however the order is not prejudicial to the interest of Revenue because by showing higher WIP the assessee has shown more profit and paid more taxes. Therefore the twin conditions are not satisfied as laid down in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issue in this case was whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was justified in invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to revise the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the assessment year 2019-20. Specifically, the issue revolved around whether the AO's failure to disallow certain expenses related to prior period expenses and liasoning charges in the computation of closing work-in-progress (WIP) rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant legal framework and precedents

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act empowers the PCIT to revise an assessment order if it is considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The two conditions must be satisfied concurrently for the PCIT to exercise this power. The Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT established that both conditions must be met for Section 263 to be invoked.

Court's interpretation and reasoning

The Tribunal examined whether the AO's order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal considered the argument that while the AO may not have conducted a detailed inquiry into the prior period expenses and liasoning charges, the absence of such inquiry did not necessarily result in prejudice to the Revenue. The Tribunal relied on the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., which emphasized that the PCIT must conduct a minimal inquiry if the AO has not done so.

Key evidence and findings

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided detailed explanations and documentation regarding the expenses in question. The expenses were related to the first year of revenue recognition from a real estate project, and the matching principle was applied to align costs with recognized revenue. The Tribunal found that the higher WIP resulted in higher reported profits and taxes paid, negating any prejudice to the Revenue.

Application of law to facts

The Tribunal applied the principles from Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT and PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. to determine that the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met. The AO's order, although potentially erroneous due to lack of inquiry, did not result in prejudice to the Revenue, as the higher WIP led to higher taxable income.

Treatment of competing arguments

The Tribunal considered the PCIT's argument that the AO's failure to disallow the expenses made the order erroneous and prejudicial. However, it found merit in the assessee's argument that the PCIT did not conduct the necessary inquiry to establish prejudice to the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that the PCIT's reliance on decisions without conducting an inquiry was insufficient to justify the revision under Section 263.

Conclusions

The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT's order was not sustainable under Section 263, as the twin conditions of error and prejudice were not satisfied. The AO's order, while potentially lacking in inquiry, did not harm the Revenue's interests, as the higher WIP led to increased tax liability.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held that for the PCIT to exercise jurisdiction under Section 263, both the conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue must be met. It stated, "It is the settled proposition of law that for invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, the twin conditions namely, the order is erroneous and the order is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue must be satisfied."

The Tribunal emphasized that the PCIT must conduct a minimal inquiry if the AO has not done so and that merely setting aside the AO's order without such inquiry is insufficient. The Tribunal quoted the Delhi High Court's decision, stating, "For the purposes of exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, the conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue has to be preceded by some minimal inquiry."

The Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order, allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, as the conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met. The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of satisfying both conditions of error and prejudice when revising an assessment order under Section 263.