9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 412 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Difference between sales as per books of accounts and as per 26AS Identity creditworthiness and genuineness of certain purchase parties not proved and Salary paid to related parties - HELD THAT - In so far as difference in sales as per books of assessee and as per 26AS concerned the assessee had furnished copy of the purchase bills confirmation from purchase parties and also explained the nature of the transaction with Ms. Babita and Ms. Seema. It is found that the PCIT even after providing the said reply by the assessee set aside the assessment order dated 21/12/2017 and directed to re-examine the same issue. The only reason assigned by the Ld. PCIT was that the explanation of the assessee seems to be plausible and it is not conclusive It is undisputed fact that all the three issues pointed out by the Ld. PCIT in the show cause notice dated 02/02/2017 have been replied by the assessee and the Ld. A.O. has satisfied on verifying the reply and passed the assessment order. Thus in our opinion invoking revisionary power u/s 263 of the Act is merely on suspicions is untenable. Further the Ld. PCIT has not made any discussion on the issues pointed out by him and exercised the power conferred u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that the explanation of the assessee seems to be plausible and it is not conclusive which is not permissible u/s 263. Thus the impugned order passed by the Ld. PCIT liable to be quashed. Accordingly the Grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Examination of whether the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3. Jurisdiction of the Pr. CIT under Section 263 concerning issues already considered by the A.O. under Section 143(3). 4. The legitimacy of the Pr. CIT substituting the A.O.'s decision with his own under Section 263. 5. Specificity of findings by the Pr. CIT on how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. 6. The necessity of setting aside the matter to the A.O. without specific findings of error and prejudice to the Revenue. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Order under Section 263: The assessee contended that the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Section 263 was invalid both legally and factually. The Pr. CIT's order was challenged on the grounds that it was not tenable without demonstrating that the A.O.'s order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. 2. Erroneous and Prejudicial to the Revenue: The Pr. CIT identified three issues: a) discrepancy between sales as per books and Form 26AS, b) doubts regarding the identity and creditworthiness of certain purchase parties, and c) genuineness of salary payments to related persons. The Pr. CIT initiated proceedings under Section 263, setting aside the original assessment and directing the A.O. to reassess. 3. Jurisdiction under Section 263: The assessee argued that all issues raised by the Pr. CIT were already examined by the A.O. during the original assessment under Section 143(3). The A.O. had issued notices and received detailed replies from the assessee, which were considered before passing the assessment order. 4. Substitution of A.O.'s Decision: The assessee contended that the Pr. CIT could not use Section 263 to substitute the A.O.'s decision with his own. The Pr. CIT's action to reassess issues already settled by the A.O. was deemed inappropriate. 5. Specificity of Findings: The Pr. CIT's order lacked specific findings on how the original assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The Pr. CIT merely stated that the explanation provided by the assessee was plausible but not conclusive, which was insufficient to justify the invocation of Section 263. 6. Setting Aside the Matter: The Pr. CIT set aside the matter to the A.O. for further verification without providing specific findings of error and prejudice. The Tribunal found this approach to be untenable, as it was based on mere suspicion rather than concrete evidence of error. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Pr. CIT's invocation of Section 263 was improper. The original assessment by the A.O. was conducted with due diligence, and the Pr. CIT's order lacked specific findings of error and prejudice. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the Pr. CIT's order dated 04/09/2019, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. Order Pronounced: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 09th February 2023.
|
