9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 17 January 2022 about the same. Therefore, the opportunity with respect to the explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act was not afforded to the assessee. Thus, on this count the learned PCIT erred in taking the course of such provisions while deciding the issue against the assessee. Secondly, the learned PCIT has also not specified the nature and the manner in which the enquiries which should have been conducted by the AO in the assessment proceedings. Thus, in the absence of any specific finding of the learned PCIT with respect to the enquiries which should have been made, we are not convinced by his order passed under section 263 of the Act. We hold that there is no error in the assessment framed by the AO under section 143(3) causing prejudice to the interest of revenue. Thus, the revisional order passed by the learned PCIT is not sustainable and therefore we quash the same. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 136/Rjt/2022 - - - Dated:- 10-8-2022 - Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R For the Revenue : Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT.D.R ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry/ verification or incorrect application of law which tantamount that the order is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus the PCIT accordingly invoked the provision of section 263 read with explanation 2 of the Income Tax Act and held the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 66 and contended that the assessment was framed by the AO after considering the necessary details and verification and application of mind. The learned AR in support of his contention drew our attention on pages 16 to 24 and page no 25 to 29 where the copy of the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 08-01-2019 and 11- 12-2019 was placed requiring the assessee to justify about the disallowance under section 14A of the Act. Likewise, the learned AR also drew our attention on pages 30 to 34 and pages 35 to 42 of the paper book where the reply of the assessee in response to the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act as mentioned above was placed. Thus, the learned AR contend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of lack of inquiry , that such a course of action would be open. --- From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately. This section does not visualise a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decision is held to be erroneous. Cases may be visualised where the Income-tax Officer while making an assessment examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and determines the income either by accepting the accounts or by making some estimate himself. The Commissioner, on perusal of the records, may be of the opinion that the estimate ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rane Vs. ITO, I.T.A. No. 2690/2691/Mum/2016, dt. 06.05.2016 examined the scope of enquiry under Explanation 2(a) to section 263 in the following words:- 20. Further clause (a) of Explanation states that an order shall be deemed to be erroneous, if it has been passed without making enquiries or verification, which should have been made. In our considered view, this provison shall apply, if the order has been passed without making enquiries or verification which a reasonable and prudent officer shall have carried out in such cases, which means that the opinion formed by Ld Pr. CIT cannot be taken as final one, without scrutinising the nature of enquiry or verification carried out by the AO vis - vis its reasonableness in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, in our considered view, what is relevant for clause (a) of Explanation 2 to sec. 263 is whether the AO has passed the order after carrying our enquiries or verification, which a reasonable and prudent officer would have carried out or not. It does not authorise or give unfettered powers to the Ld Pr. CIT to revise each and every order, if in his opinion, the same has been passed without making enquiries or verifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Income-tax-2, Meerut v. Canara Bank Securities Ltd[2020] 114 taxmann.com 545 (SC), dismissed the Revenue s SLP holding that 263 proceedings are invalid when AO had made enquiries and taken a plausible view in law, with the following observations: Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we see no reason to interfere with the view of the Tribunal. The question whether the income should be taxed as business income or as arising from the other source was a debatable issue. The Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view. More importantly, if the Commissioner was of the opinion that on the available facts from record it could be conclusively held that income arose from other sources, he could and ought to have so held in the order of revision. There was simply no necessity to remand the proceedings to the Assessing Officer when no further inquiries were called for or directed 8.7 From an analysis of the above judicial precedents, the principle which emerges is that the phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Ever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quiry. Indeed the Pr. CIT initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the AO has not made enquiries or verification which should have been made in respect of disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D of the Act. It is not the case of the Pr. CIT that the Ld. AO did not apply his mind to the issue on hand or he had omitted to make enquiries altogether. In the instant set of facts, the AO had made enquiries and after consideration of material placed on record accepted the genuineness of the claim of the assessee. 8.10 At this juncture, it is also important to note that the learned PCIT in his order passed under section 263 of the Act has made reference to the explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act. It was attempted by the learned PCIT to hold that there were certain necessary enquiries which should have been made by the AO during the assessment proceedings but not conducted by him. Therefore, on this reasoning the order of the AO is also erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this regard, we make our observation that the learned PCIT has not invoked the explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act in the show cause notice dated 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
