2018 (12) TMI 1877 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Whether twin conditions of the assessment order being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue are to be satisfied? - HELD THAT - AO had called for the details during the assessment proceedings and had further issued a notice u/s 154 and after being satisfied has dropped the 154 proceedings. Therefore it is clear that the AO has applied his mind to the information filed by the assessee and therefore the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous. The issues raised by the CIT as the mistakes/discrepancies are of factual nature and not against the law therefore for this reason also the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous. We also agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the CIT cannot direct the AO to redo the assessment without pointing out the errors committed by the AO and without giving a finding as to how the assessment order is erroneous. From the literal reading of the order u/s 263 we find that the CIT pointed out certain discrepancies and then subsequently reproduced the assessee s submissions and then directed the AO to redo the assessment. Thus there is no finding whatsoever as to whether the assessee s contentions were acceptable to him or not and as to how the assessment order is erroneous. Therefore the revision order passed by the Pr. CIT is not sustainable. The assessee s appeal is accordingly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment under section 263 for A.Y 2013-14 based on discrepancies in municipal tax, maintenance charges, and TDS claims.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Municipal Tax Disallowance:
The CIT invoked section 263 due to discrepancies in the municipal tax claim by the assessee. The CIT observed that the tenants were supposed to pay the tax, but the assessee claimed it. The assessee argued that they paid the tax themselves, thus justifying the deduction under section 23(a). The CIT set aside the assessment order, directing a reassessment.

2. Maintenance Charges and Income Addition:
Another discrepancy highlighted was the maintenance charges received exceeding the actual expenditure claimed. The CIT proposed adding the excess income to the total. The assessee contended that the maintenance charges received were not fully claimed as income and should not be considered under section 24. The CIT ordered a reassessment.

3. TDS Claim Discrepancy:
The CIT found a shortfall in income offered for TDS claims compared to the computation. The CIT proposed adding the shortfall to the total income. The assessee explained the TDS differences based on different sections under which TDS was deducted. The CIT was not convinced and set aside the assessment order for reassessment.

4. Judicial Review and Conclusion:
The assessee challenged the CIT's decision, arguing that the AO had verified the information during assessment and rectification proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the AO had applied due diligence, dropping the rectification proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that for section 263 to apply, the assessment must be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. As the CIT did not point out specific errors or provide a valid reason for reassessment, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deeming the revision order unsustainable.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the necessity for specific errors to justify reassessment under section 263. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of the AO's due diligence in assessing discrepancies and rejected the CIT's direction for reassessment without proper justification.