2025 (5) TMI 1559 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - order u/s 147 r/w Section 144B to be revised - unexplained investment - HELD THAT - At the time of assessment has given the details of the payment schedule to M/s. Navratna Organizers Developers Private Limited and ledger with supporting invoice as well as Bank statement and sale deed. Assessment Order has categorically mentioned in paragraph no.2.4 that the assessee s claim that the assessee made payment to M/s. Navratna Organizers Developers Private Limited through cheques and got refund of Rs. 5, 10, 000/- in cash. These documents were before the AO. The assessee has categorically submitted these documents before the PCIT as well upon which the PCIT has not commented. Therefore the PCIT ignored the factual aspect related to the payment made to M/s. Navratna Organizers Developers Private Limited and has not demonstrated on what basis the same forms on-money transaction and which part of the sale transaction was not verified by the AO. Thus invocation of Section 263 of the Act itself is not justifiable - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

(a) Whether the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was justified in invoking the revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to revise the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18;

(b) Whether the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) at the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), New Delhi, was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue due to non-addition of Rs. 51,14,000/- alleged to be paid as on-money in connection with the purchase of immovable property;

(c) Whether the AO had properly examined and verified the documents and evidences submitted by the assessee regarding the payment of Rs. 51,14,000/- to M/s. Navratna Organizers & Developers Private Limited, and whether the AO's acceptance of the declared income was justified;

(d) Whether the PCIT's issuance of notice and proceeding under Section 263 was legally sustainable in the absence of any error or prejudicial order;

(e) Whether the PCIT's order violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard;

(f) Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a) and (b): Justification for invoking revisionary powers under Section 263 and whether the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue for non-addition of Rs. 51,14,000/-

The legal framework governing the revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act mandates that the PCIT can revise an assessment order if it is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The scope of such revision is limited and must be based on demonstrable error in the assessment order.

Precedents establish that mere difference of opinion between the AO and the PCIT does not warrant interference under Section 263 unless the order is clearly erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

In the present case, the PCIT held that the AO erred in not making any addition of Rs. 51,14,000/- paid as on-money over and above the document value of the property purchased from M/s. Navratna Organizers & Developers Private Limited. The PCIT observed that this amount represented unaccounted money and should have been treated as unexplained investment, warranting addition to income. Accordingly, the PCIT set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to pass a fresh order after making the addition.

However, the Tribunal noted that the AO had examined the documents and evidences submitted by the assessee, including payment schedules, ledger entries, bank statements, invoices, and sale deeds. The AO accepted the payment made by the assessee through cheques and noted the refund of Rs. 5,10,000/- in cash. The AO's order explicitly mentions the verification of these documents and acceptance of the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal found that the PCIT did not specify the basis on which the payment was to be treated as on-money or why the AO's examination was inadequate. The PCIT also failed to comment on the documents and evidences submitted by the assessee, which were duly considered by the AO.

Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

Issue (c): Whether the AO properly examined the documents and evidences regarding payment

The AO's assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144B acknowledges receipt and verification of detailed documents submitted by the assessee to substantiate the payment of Rs. 51,14,000/-. These included payment schedules, bank statements evidencing cheque payments, ledger accounts, invoices, and the sale deed. The AO accepted the genuineness of these payments and did not make any addition.

The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's detailed examination of the evidences demonstrated due diligence and proper verification. The AO's acceptance of the declared income was based on these verifications and was not arbitrary or without basis.

The PCIT's order did not point out any specific defect or discrepancy in the AO's verification process. The Tribunal observed that the PCIT ignored these factual aspects and did not demonstrate any failure on the part of the AO to verify the payments.

Issue (d): Legality of PCIT's issuance of notice and proceedings under Section 263

The PCIT issued a notice under Section 263 seeking to revise the assessment order on the ground that the AO failed to make the addition of Rs. 51,14,000/- as unexplained investment. The Tribunal examined whether such action was legally sustainable.

It is a settled principle that Section 263 can be invoked only when the order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The Tribunal found no error in the AO's order as the AO had accepted the payments after verification. Further, the PCIT did not show any material or evidence to establish that the AO's order was prejudicial to revenue.

Therefore, the issuance of notice and revision proceedings under Section 263 were held to be without legal basis.

Issue (e): Alleged violation of principle of natural justice

The assessee contended that the PCIT's order under Section 263 violated the principle of natural justice as no proper opportunity of hearing was provided before passing the order.

The record indicates that the assessee was issued a show cause notice under Section 263 and submitted a detailed reply along with documents. The PCIT's order refers to the reply but does not address the evidences submitted.

The Tribunal did not find any specific instance of denial of opportunity. However, the PCIT's failure to consider the assessee's submissions and evidences amounted to non-application of mind and procedural impropriety.

Issue (f): Condonation of delay in filing the appeal

The appeal was filed with a delay of 49 days. The assessee explained that the delay occurred due to the local consultant's unawareness of the proceedings and inadvertent retention of the order for nearly four months.

The Tribunal found the explanation genuine and condoned the delay in filing the appeal.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The invocation of Section 263 of the Act itself is not justifiable and hence appeal of the assessee is allowed."

"The PCIT ignored the factual aspect related to the payment made to M/s. Navratna Organizers & Developers Private Limited and has not demonstrated on what basis the same forms on-money transaction and which part of the sale transaction was not verified by the Assessing Officer."

"The Assessment Order has categorically mentioned that the assessee's claim that payment was made through cheques and refund received in cash was duly verified by the Assessing Officer."

"The PCIT's order passed under Section 263 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue only if the order is erroneous on the face of the record and causes prejudice to revenue, which is not the case here."

The Tribunal established the principle that mere difference of opinion between the AO and the PCIT does not warrant revision under Section 263 unless the order is demonstrably erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

Final determinations:

(i) The assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act by the AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue;

(ii) The PCIT's invocation of revisionary powers under Section 263 was unjustified and unsustainable;

(iii) The AO had duly verified the payments made by the assessee and accepted the declared income;

(iv) The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, and the order under Section 263 is set aside;

(v) Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.