9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1475 - AT - Income TaxRevision proceedings u/s 263 - assessment order framed u/s 147 challenged - additions for alleged accommodation entries unsecured loans - HELD THAT - The assessee met each of the queries so raised and filed various replies and submissions. The assessee filed detailed replies giving all the particulars and also furnished various explanations on all these issues. Considering all these aspects / submissions AO accepted the claim of the assessee and chose not to make any such addition to the returned income. In our view whatever enquiries were required the same were already made by AO and the allegation that the issues were accepted without verification is bereft of any substance. AO had taken one of the possible views in the matter and the same could not be said to be opposed to any law or any statutory provisions. Having gone through the reply of the assessee and after having satisfied himself AO accepted the claim of the assessee with due application of mind. Considering the given factual matrix the said view of AO could be said to be one of the possible views. In such a scenario CIT in our considered opinion could not have substituted the opinion of AO with that of his own view unless the view of Ld. AO was shown to be perverse. We find that the view of Ld. AO was a plausible view. Assessee appeal allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Legitimacy of Revisionary Jurisdiction Exercised by Pr. CIT Relevant legal framework and precedents: The revisionary jurisdiction of the Pr. CIT under the Income Tax Act allows him to examine the assessment order passed by the AO to ensure correctness and legality. However, this power is limited and cannot be exercised to substitute the AO's bona fide opinion with that of the Pr. CIT unless the AO's order is found to be perverse, illegal, or without application of mind. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Pr. CIT had set aside the assessment order on the ground that the AO had accepted the assessee's claims without proper verification. The Tribunal examined the factual matrix and procedural history to assess whether the AO had indeed failed to verify the claims. Key evidence and findings: The AO had reopened the assessment under section 147 after receiving information about accommodation entries and unsecured loans. The AO issued notices under section 142(1), sought detailed information including cash books, bank statements, and confronted the assessee with SEBI investigation reports. The assessee responded with detailed replies, contract notes, ledger extracts, and submissions challenging the allegations. After considering these, the AO accepted the assessee's claims and did not make any additions. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted due verification and applied his mind before accepting the claims. The AO's decision represented one of the possible views in the matter, which cannot be interfered with unless it is perverse or illegal. The Pr. CIT's revisionary order substituted the AO's considered opinion without establishing perversity or illegality. Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee argued that the AO had verified all facts and evidence before accepting the claims, including the settlement of loans through banking channels and payment of interest with tax deduction at source. The Revenue contended that the AO's acceptance was without verification. The Tribunal found the Revenue's contention unsubstantiated given the record of enquiries and replies. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the revisionary jurisdiction was exercised without valid grounds and was not justified in setting aside the assessment order. Issue 2: Adequacy of AO's Verification Regarding Accommodation Entries, Unsecured Loans, and Fictitious Profits Relevant legal framework and precedents: Under the Income Tax Act, the AO is required to verify the genuineness of transactions and sources of income before making any additions. The reopening of assessment under section 147 mandates that the AO must have tangible material indicating income has escaped assessment. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal analyzed the procedural steps taken by the AO, including issuance of notices, seeking clarifications, confronting the assessee with SEBI investigations, and the assessee's detailed replies. The AO's acceptance of the returned income after considering all evidence was held to be a valid exercise of discretion. Key evidence and findings: The AO's draft assessment order initially proposed additions on account of unsecured loans and accommodation entries. However, after considering the assessee's detailed submissions, contract notes, and evidence of settlement of loans, the AO refrained from making additions. The AO's approach showed due diligence and application of mind. Application of law to facts: The AO's acceptance of the assessee's claims was consistent with the evidence on record and within the scope of his discretionary powers. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's view was plausible and not contrary to any statutory provision. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's argument that the AO did not verify the claims was rejected due to the extensive enquiries and responses documented. The assessee's submissions were found credible and supported by documentary evidence. Conclusions: The AO's verification was adequate and the acceptance of the returned income was a reasonable and lawful decision. Issue 3: Substitution of AO's Opinion by Pr. CIT in Revisionary Proceedings Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principle that an appellate or revisional authority cannot substitute its opinion for that of the AO unless the AO's order is perverse or contrary to law is well established. The scope of revisionary jurisdiction is limited to correction of errors apparent on the face of the record. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that the AO's order was one of the possible views and was not perverse. The Pr. CIT's order substituting the AO's opinion without demonstrating perversity or illegality was improper. Key evidence and findings: The AO had considered all submissions and evidence and had reached a plausible conclusion. The Pr. CIT's order did not point to any illegality or perversity in the AO's view but merely expressed a difference of opinion. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that difference of opinion is not a ground to interfere with the AO's order in revisionary proceedings. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's reliance on the revisionary power to correct perceived errors was rejected as it amounted to substituting the AO's opinion without valid grounds. Conclusions: The Pr. CIT's substitution of the AO's view was unwarranted and the revisionary order was quashed. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held that "the view of Ld. AO was a plausible view. Accordingly, we quash the impugned revisionary order and restore the assessment as originally framed by Ld. AO." It was established as a core principle that the revisionary jurisdiction of the Pr. CIT cannot be exercised to substitute the AO's bona fide opinion with that of the Pr. CIT unless the AO's order is shown to be perverse or illegal. The Tribunal concluded that the AO had conducted adequate verification, applied due diligence, and the acceptance of the returned income without additions was within the scope of his discretionary powers. The revisionary order setting aside the assessment was therefore not sustainable.
|
