9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 1944 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - AO s order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - deductions claimed by the assessee under Sections 80IA(4) 80G Section 37(1) and freight charges - HELD THAT - A careful perusal of Section 263(1) of the IT Act would show that it is the essential condition to invoke Section 263 that the Commissioner must find that the order of assessment is erroneous firstly and secondly that the order of the assessing authority is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Commissioner of Income Tax has power to take into consideration all records available at the time of examination by him. Record would mean all records relating to proceeding available at the time of examination with the Commissioner. See Shree Manjunatheaware Packing Products Camphore Works 1997 (12) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT ITAT has clearly observed that the PCIT did not carry out any independent enquiry or pinpoint any specific error in the assessment order and further held that the AO had conducted due diligence and applied his mind before passing the order of assessment. ITAT has further observed that the PCIT has merely asked the AO to verify those facts again which were already verified and which is not the valid ground under Section 263 of the IT Act and furthermore in order to invoke Section 263 it is well settled that both the conditions that the order must be erroneous and it must be prejudicial to the interest of revenue must be satisfied. The assessee had made donation to the Prime Minister s National Relief Fund and he has also been allowed deduction for last assessment year and documents have also been filed showing that deduction has been allowed in previous year. As such the finding recorded by the ITAT that there is no apparent error in the assessment order and it is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue is the correct finding of fact based on the evidence available on record it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and therefore we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the ITAT. We are of the considered opinion that both the twin conditions namely the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous and it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue are not satisfied at all to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 263 - Decided in favour of assessee.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court were:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of invoking Section 263 revisional jurisdiction by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 263(1) of the IT Act empowers the Principal Commissioner to call for and examine records of any proceeding and revise the order passed by the AO if the order is found to be "erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue." The Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT established that two essential conditions must be satisfied for exercise of revisionary power under Section 263: (i) the AO's order must be erroneous; and (ii) the order must be prejudicial to the revenue. Both conditions are mandatory and conjunctive. "The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If one of them is absent... recourse cannot be had to Section 263(1) of the Act." The Court further clarified that not every mistake or difference of opinion qualifies for revision; only errors that are unsustainable in law or fact and cause prejudice to revenue justify invoking Section 263. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that the revisional authority must conduct an independent inquiry or identify specific errors in the AO's order. Merely directing the AO to re-examine facts already verified or reconsider issues without pointing out any definite error is insufficient. The revisional power is not to be exercised as a supervisory or appellate jurisdiction but strictly within the statutory limits. Key evidence and findings: The AO had conducted detailed scrutiny, issued notices under Section 142(1), and examined all relevant documents filed by the assessee to justify the claimed deductions under Sections 80IA(4) and 80G, as well as expenses under Section 37(1) and freight charges. The AO allowed the deductions after due consideration. The PCIT, without conducting any independent enquiry or pointing out specific errors, set aside the AO's order and directed re-examination. The ITAT found that the PCIT's direction was vague and lacked tangible material to prove error or prejudice. Application of law to facts: Applying the twin conditions from Malabar Industrial, the Court found no evidence that the AO's order was erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. The AO had applied his mind and verified claims adequately. The PCIT's action amounted to mere re-examination without establishing error or prejudice. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the revisional authority must verify facts and ensure correctness of the AO's order, relying on Malabar Industrial. The assessee contended that the AO's order was proper, deductions were allowed in earlier years, and no fresh material justified revision. The Court sided with the assessee and ITAT's findings, holding that the revisional jurisdiction was not properly invoked. Conclusion: The revisional authority's order under Section 263 was unjustified and rightly set aside by the ITAT. Issue 2: Legitimacy of deductions claimed under Sections 80IA(4), 80G, Section 37(1), and freight charges Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 80IA(4) provides deductions for profits and gains from infrastructure development undertakings. Section 80G allows deductions for donations to specified funds such as the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. Section 37(1) permits deductions of expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court did not find any dispute on the legal entitlement to these deductions if properly substantiated. The AO had accepted the deductions after scrutiny of documents and verification of claims. The PCIT did not bring forth any new material or legal principle to challenge these deductions. Key evidence and findings: The assessee had filed all necessary documents, and deductions under Section 80IA(4) had been allowed in previous years. The donation under Section 80G to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund was supported by appropriate evidence. Freight and railway-related expenses were also examined and allowed by the AO. Application of law to facts: Since the AO had examined and accepted the claims, and no fresh or contradictory evidence was brought before the revisional authority, the deductions were rightly allowed. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's contention that the deductions should be re-examined lacked foundation as the PCIT did not identify any error or omission in the AO's order. The assessee's position that the claims were legitimate and accepted in earlier years was upheld. Conclusion: The deductions claimed under Sections 80IA(4), 80G, Section 37(1), and freight charges were validly allowed by the AO and not open to revision under Section 263. Issue 3: Interpretation of "erroneous" and "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue" under Section 263 Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial and subsequent rulings clarified that "erroneous" includes incorrect assumptions of fact, incorrect application of law, failure to apply mind, or breach of principles of natural justice. "Prejudicial to the interests of revenue" means causing loss or potential loss to the revenue, but not every loss is prejudicial if the AO's order is sustainable in law. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court reiterated that both elements must coexist. An order cannot be revised if it is erroneous but not prejudicial, or prejudicial but not erroneous. The revisional jurisdiction is not to be exercised on mere differences of opinion or to correct every error. Application of law to facts: The ITAT's finding that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial was accepted. The PCIT failed to demonstrate any legal or factual error causing prejudice. Conclusion: The revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was correctly declined by the ITAT as the twin conditions were not met. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If one of them is absent - if the order of the Income Tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue - recourse cannot be had to Section 263(1) of the Act." "The provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer; it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous." "The revisional authority must carry out independent enquiry or point out specific error. Merely directing the AO to verify facts again which were already verified is not a valid ground under Section 263." "The order of the AO was passed after due inquiry, verification of documents and application of mind, and deductions under Sections 80IA(4), 80G, Section 37(1), and freight charges were rightly allowed." "Both the twin conditions for invoking Section 263, namely, the order must be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, are not satisfied; hence, the revisional order is unjustified and rightly set aside." The Court affirmed the ITAT's decision dismissing the appeal and upheld the principle that revision under Section 263 is a limited power to be exercised only when both conditions are met, safeguarding the finality of assessment orders unless clear error and prejudice exist.
|
