2025 (6) TMI 285 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - as per CIT reassessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s.144B was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue - unsecured loan receipts - PCIT had concluded that the AO ought to have obtained the explanation / reply regarding the identity genuineness and creditworthiness of loan transaction in respect of the amount received as loan from Shri Jignesh Shah HELD THAT - The re-assessment proceedings have been initiated by the AO specifically to examine the loan transactions and during the re-assessment proceedings the assessee had totally denied any alleged accommodation entry from Shri Jignesh Shah. Then the PCIT for initiating proceedings u/s. 263 ought to have brought on record some material to reflect that assessee had actually received these accommodation entries. Assessee s books of accounts are properly maintained and duly audited u/s. 44AB of the Act. Neither the AO nor the PCIT has found any entry in the books of accounts of the assessee in respect of these alleged accommodation entries nor from the bank statement of the assessee that assessee had received any sum from Shri Jignesh Shah. Therefore in the absence of any entries in the books of accounts or bank account statement indicating any transaction between assessee and Shri Jignesh Shah the invocation of revisionary proceedings u/s.263 of the Act merely on suspicion is not legally tenable. Though the AO has not discussed in detail in the reassessment order about the reply and documents filed by the assessee it is a matter on record that assessee had produced all the details as well as books of accounts and bank account statements to show that no such entry is reflected in the books of accounts or in the bank account statement of the assessee. Once the assessee has produced the relevant records to establish it had not received any loan amount from Shri Jignesh Shah then the burden shifts to the Revenue to bring some tangible material to show that assessee had actually received the amount from Shri Jignesh Shah as accommodation entries. On identical facts (in a case of loan/advance from Shri Jignesh Shah) the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kaivan Jitendrakumar Shah 2024 (8) TMI 1114 - ITAT AHMEDABAD had held invocation of revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is not correct and quashed the same. There is no relevant details about the date of payment of loan by Shri Jignesh Shah to the assessee company how was it paid etc. As mentioned earlier when the books of accounts were audited and same has been placed on record before the AO as well as before the PCIT AO or PCIT ought to have brought on record some tangible material to show that assessee company had actually received the amount from Shri Jignesh Shah. Assessee cannot be expected to prove negative. Therefore we quash the order of PCIT passed u/s. 263 - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this judgment relate to the validity and correctness of the revisionary order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly whether the reassessment order under section 147 read with section 144B was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue for failing to make necessary enquiries and verifications regarding alleged fictitious loans. Specifically, the issues include:

1. Whether the reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue for not adding the entire amount of alleged fictitious loans received from Shri Jignesh Shah.

2. Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act to set aside the reassessment order and direct further enquiries.

3. The extent of the duty of the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of loan transactions, especially when the assessee denies receipt of such loans.

4. The evidentiary burden on the assessee and the revenue when the assessee denies having received the alleged loans and the revenue relies on information from search operations and insight portal data.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Validity of the reassessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 144B regarding alleged fictitious loans

The legal framework involves the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, which allows reopening of assessments if the AO has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, and section 144B, which relates to faceless assessment proceedings. The AO had reopened the assessment based on information from search operations under section 132 and insight portal data indicating that the assessee had received unsecured loans from Shri Jignesh Shah and Wellman Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd.

In the reassessment order dated 30.03.2022, the AO added only Rs. 13,00,000/- relating to the loan from Wellman Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. as unexplained credit under section 68 but did not make any addition concerning the larger amount of Rs. 73,60,956/- allegedly received from Shri Jignesh Shah.

The PCIT found this selective addition erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, reasoning that the AO failed to make any enquiry or obtain explanation regarding the larger loan amount from Shri Jignesh Shah despite reopening the assessment specifically on this issue. The PCIT noted that the AO did not verify the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the loan transactions and neglected to examine the complete financials, unsecured loan creditors' details, and ledger accounts. The PCIT relied on the Supreme Court's rulings in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT and L G Electronics India (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT, which hold that an order passed without applying mind or violating principles of natural justice is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue and that revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 is valid even if the AO considered the issue but passed the order without discussion.

Applying these principles, the PCIT set aside the reassessment order and directed the AO to make necessary enquiries into the unsecured loan amount of Rs. 73,60,956/- from Shri Jignesh Shah, giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

Issue 2: Justification for invoking revisionary jurisdiction under section 263

The PCIT's power under section 263 is to revise an order if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The PCIT concluded that the AO's order was erroneous because it failed to address the entire loan amount and prejudicial because it allowed the assessee to escape tax on Rs. 73,60,956/- without enquiry or verification.

The assessee challenged this on the ground that the reassessment had already been subjected to scrutiny twice, and the AO had not made any addition in respect of the loan from Shri Jignesh Shah due to lack of evidence. The assessee denied having received such loans and requested the AO to produce details, which were not provided. The assessee contended that the PCIT did not bring any fresh material on record to justify revisionary proceedings and that the AO's acceptance of the assessee's denial was a valid exercise of discretion.

The Tribunal examined relevant precedents, including decisions from the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal and High Courts, which emphasize that revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be invoked merely on suspicion or because the revising authority disagrees with the AO's view. The Tribunal referred to the judgment in CIT vs. Kamal Galani and CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., which clarify that section 263 applies only where there is lack of inquiry or no application of mind by the AO, not merely because the revising authority differs in opinion.

In the present case, the AO had considered the assessee's denial, examined the submissions, and did not find evidence to make addition for the loan from Shri Jignesh Shah. The AO's order was not passed without enquiry or without applying mind; rather, it was a considered decision based on the material available. The PCIT did not bring any new or tangible material to show that the AO's order was erroneous or prejudicial. Hence, the Tribunal held that the PCIT's exercise of revisionary power was not justified.

Issue 3: Duty of AO to verify genuineness of loan transactions when the assessee denies receipt

The AO's reopening was based on information from search operations and insight portal data indicating loans from Shri Jignesh Shah and Wellman Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. The AO requested explanations and documentary evidence from the assessee. The assessee denied receipt of such loans and requested the AO to provide details of the alleged transactions, which were not furnished.

The AO added only the amount relating to Wellman Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. and did not add the amount relating to Shri Jignesh Shah due to lack of evidence. The PCIT criticized this selective addition and held that the AO ought to have made enquiries regarding the entire amount.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's duty is to verify the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of loans, but this duty must be exercised based on tangible material. When the assessee denies receipt and produces books of accounts and bank statements showing no such entries, the burden shifts to the revenue to produce evidence to the contrary. Without such evidence, the AO cannot make additions merely on suspicion.

The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee cannot be compelled to prove a negative (i.e., that it did not receive the loan), and the AO must bring concrete material to justify additions. The absence of such material in this case made the AO's selective addition and the PCIT's revisionary order unsustainable.

Issue 4: Evidentiary burden and reliance on information from search and insight portals

The reassessment was initiated based on information from search operations under section 132 and data from the insight portal, which indicated loans from entities linked to the NSEL scam. The PCIT relied on this information to direct further enquiries.

The Tribunal observed that while such information can form the basis for reopening, it must be substantiated with concrete evidence during reassessment. The AO must verify transactions through books of accounts, bank statements, and explanations from the assessee. In this case, the assessee produced audited accounts and bank statements showing no receipt of loans from Shri Jignesh Shah.

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the PCIT produced tangible evidence to contradict the assessee's records. The reliance on mere suspicion or unverified information from the insight portal without corroboration is insufficient to justify additions or revisionary orders.

Conclusions on Issues

The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of revenue in respect of the loan from Shri Jignesh Shah. The AO had applied mind and conducted enquiries based on the material available. The PCIT's revisionary order under section 263 lacked foundation as no new material was brought on record to show error or prejudice. The invocation of section 263 in this case was held to be legally untenable and was quashed.

Significant Holdings

"It is only in cases of 'lack of inquiry' that such a course of action would be open [under section 263]. In the present case, the AO did conduct proper inquiries based on which the case was reopened and had accepted the explanation of the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. PCIT was not justified in invoking the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and directing further inquiries or taking different view in the matter without bringing anything on record to establish that the view as taken by the AO was not correct."

"The assessee cannot be expected to prove the negative. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid reasoning and the judicial pronouncement cited supra, we quash the order of PCIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act."

"When the books of accounts were audited and same has been placed on record before the AO as well as before the PCIT, the AO or PCIT ought to have brought on record some tangible material to show that assessee company had actually received the amount from Shri Jignesh Shah."

"An incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law by the AO would make the order of assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue." (Citing Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT)

"The Explanation-2 to Section 263 of the Act stipulates that the order of the AO will be deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, if such order is passed without making enquiries for verifications which should have been made or if the order is passed allowing any relief without enquiring into the claim. This condition is not found fulfilled in this case as the AO had made detailed inquiries on the issue of accommodation entry which was denied by the assessee and no further evidence was brought on record to establish the said alleged transaction."

The Tribunal's final determination was to allow the appeal of the assessee, quash the revisionary order passed under section 263, and hold that the AO's reassessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue in respect of the loan transactions with Shri Jignesh Shah. The matter of the addition relating to Wellman Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. remains pending adjudication before the First Appellate Authority.