2025 (6) TMI 498 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Exemption u/s 11 and 12 - HELD THAT - It is true that the assessment order dated 14.12.2011 does not discuss the queries raised or the answers given thereto. But the fact is the AO had issued a questionnaire dated 26.07.2011 u/s 142 (1) raising 34 questions on various issues and assessee had given an explanation and also submitted materials. In our view once a notice is issued and assessee is called upon to show cause or give explanation or submit documents and assessee has complied not giving a finding or discussing the same would mean that the AO was satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. In Aroni Commercials Limited 2014 (2) TMI 659 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT while dealing with the provisions of Section 148 of the Act held that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and assessee has replied to it it follows that the query was subject matter of consideration of the AO while completing the assessment and the same is deemed to have been accepted. The Court also held that it is not necessary that an assessment order should contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of each and every query raised. Therefore as there is no discussion or finding on the 34 questions raised u/s 142(1) of the Act vide the communication dated 26.07.2011 the AO should be taken as having accepted assessee s explanation. Therefore we agree with the Tribunal that the Commissioner has exercised his power u/s 263 of the Act in an arbitrary manner and hence the impugned order requires to be quashed. The substantial questions of law answered in favour of assessee.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court were:

(i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in an arbitrary manner and lacked jurisdiction in passing the revision order;

(ii) Whether it was correct for the Appellate Tribunal to hold that the Assessing Officer (AO) is not required to place all details and findings in the assessment records;

(iii) Whether the CIT's consideration that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue must be based on materials on record of proceedings called for by him.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Jurisdiction and Exercise of Power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 263 empowers the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, or Commissioner to call for and examine records of any proceedings under the Act and, if satisfied that any order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue, to revise such order after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The power includes enhancing, modifying, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment.

Explanation 2 of Section 263 clarifies that an order is "erroneous" and "prejudicial" if passed without making necessary inquiries or verification, allowing relief without inquiry, or not in accordance with Board directions or judicial decisions.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that before issuing a notice under Section 263, the Commissioner must form a prima facie opinion that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. This is necessary because the assessee must be informed of the grounds on which they are called to respond. The Court found that the notice dated 07.03.2014 issued by the Commissioner did not discuss or demonstrate why the receipts in question were business receipts or why exemption under Section 11 was wrongly allowed. The notice merely stated that the exemption was allowed without verification, without any supporting discussion or evidence. Hence, the Court characterized the Commissioner's action as a "mere conjecture and a fishing enquiry."

Key evidence and findings: The Commissioner's notice listed various receipts (special fees, bus pass collection, hostel charges, etc.) and asserted they were business receipts not qualifying for exemption. However, no detailed analysis or verification was provided to substantiate this assertion.

Application of law to facts: Since the Commissioner did not form a prima facie opinion based on materials on record before issuing the notice, the exercise of power under Section 263 was held to be arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the exemption was wrongly allowed and the Commissioner was justified in revising the assessment. The Court rejected this, holding that the Commissioner's failure to explain the basis of his opinion or to rely on record materials rendered the revision invalid.

Conclusion: The Commissioner's order under Section 263 was quashed for lack of jurisdiction and arbitrary exercise of power.

Issue (ii): Requirement of Assessment Records to Contain Detailed Findings

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court relied heavily on the precedent set by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Aroni Commercials Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, which held that it is not necessary for an assessment order to contain detailed discussion or findings on every query raised during the assessment proceedings. Once the assessee replies to queries raised under Section 142(1), the AO is deemed to have considered and accepted the explanations unless the order explicitly states otherwise.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The assessment order under Section 143(3) did not discuss the 34 questions raised in the questionnaire issued under Section 142(1). However, since the assessee had replied and submitted explanations and documents, the Court inferred that the AO was satisfied with the replies. The absence of explicit findings in the assessment order does not imply non-consideration or acceptance of the assessee's explanations.

Key evidence and findings: The AO issued a detailed questionnaire and the assessee complied with explanations and documents. The assessment order accepted exemption under Sections 11 and 12 without further queries or adverse findings.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle from Aroni Commercials that an AO's satisfaction need not be recorded in the order for every question raised, and the absence of such recording is not fatal.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue contended that the lack of discussion indicated non-verification and erroneous allowance of exemption. The Court rejected this, holding that the AO's acceptance is implied where no adverse comment or further inquiry is recorded.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was correct in holding that it is unnecessary for the AO to place all details and findings in the assessment order, and the assessment was not flawed on this ground.

Issue (iii): Necessity of Reliance on Record Materials by the Commissioner in Revising the Order

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 263 requires the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of proceedings and base his opinion on whether the order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue on materials on record. The Commissioner must conduct or cause to be conducted such inquiry as deemed necessary before passing a revision order.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the Commissioner's notice and order did not reference any materials on record or findings from the assessment proceedings. The notice was based on an unsubstantiated opinion without verification or inquiry. This failed the statutory requirement that the revision under Section 263 be supported by materials on record.

Key evidence and findings: The Commissioner's notice did not mention any documents or evidence contradicting the AO's acceptance of exemption. The absence of discussion on the basis of the opinion indicated a lack of inquiry.

Application of law to facts: The Court held that the Commissioner's failure to base his opinion on record materials rendered the revision order invalid.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the Commissioner was entitled to form an independent opinion and initiate revision. The Court clarified that such opinion must be informed and based on record materials, not mere conjecture.

Conclusion: The Commissioner's order was invalid for lack of material basis and failure to comply with procedural requirements under Section 263.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"Before he even issues a notice, he should have come to a finding that the assessment order passed was erroneous and it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. We say this because he has to give an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. If the assessee has to be heard, the assessee should be told on what he has to answer. But, if he has to be told on what he has to answer, the Commissioner should have formed a prima facie opinion at least that the assessment order was erroneous and it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue."

"The whole thing appears to be a mere conjecture and a fishing enquiry by appellant."

"Once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query was subject matter of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment and the same is deemed to have been accepted. It is not necessary that an assessment order should contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of each and every query raised."

"The Commissioner has exercised his power under Section 263 of the Act in an arbitrary manner and hence, the impugned order requires to be quashed."

The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, thereby affirming the Tribunal's decision setting aside the revision order under Section 263.