9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 870 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - AO overlooked alleged discrepancy in stock amount and overlooked the fact of whether condition to claim deduction u/s 80IB(10) had been fulfilled by assessee or not - HELD THAT - Admittedly coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee s case for the year under consideration 2022 (4) TMI 31 - ITAT MUMBAI held that 263 has been wrongly invoked on the issue of closing stock. The assessing officer in the OGE passed to the 263 order has made addition only on this issue. We therefore hold that addition deserves to be deleted as this issue gets merged with the order of this Tribunal under such circumstances the addition deserves to be deleted. Appeal filed by the assessee is 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: Jurisdiction of PCIT to invoke revision under section 263 regarding mismatch in stock-in-trade Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 263 of the Income Tax Act empowers the PCIT to revise an assessment order if it is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. However, the scope of such revision is circumscribed by judicial precedents which mandate that the revisional authority must have jurisdiction and the grounds for revision must be valid and not an attempt to re-assess or re-open issues already decided. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal referred to a coordinate bench decision in ITA No. 1167/Mum/2021 dated 30.03.2022 which had already examined the identical issue of the PCIT's jurisdiction to invoke section 263 in respect of the alleged mismatch in closing stock of Rs. 83,66,359/-. The coordinate bench held that the PCIT had no jurisdiction to raise this issue under section 263, effectively declaring the revision order void ab initio on this ground. Key evidence and findings: The only addition made in the consequential assessment order dated 13.09.2021 was on account of the alleged mismatch in closing stock. The Tribunal noted that the coordinate bench had already ruled against the PCIT's jurisdiction to revise on this ground. Application of law to facts: Since the PCIT's revision order lacked jurisdiction, any consequential assessment order passed pursuant to such revision was also invalid. The Tribunal held that the addition made in the assessment order under section 144 read with section 263 was unsustainable. Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee argued that the Tribunal's prior ruling on jurisdiction was binding and the addition should be deleted. The Revenue relied on the orders of lower authorities to uphold the addition. The Tribunal preferred the binding coordinate bench ruling, emphasizing the absence of jurisdiction. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT's invocation of section 263 was without jurisdiction and the consequential addition on stock mismatch must be deleted. Issue 2: Validity of addition on alleged mismatch in closing stock and eligibility for deduction under section 80IB(10) Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act provides for 100% deduction of profits from approved housing projects, subject to fulfillment of prescribed conditions. The assessment must verify whether these conditions are met. The valuation of closing stock is critical in determining profits and eligibility for deduction. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the assessee had submitted all relevant details and evidences before the Assessing Officer (AO) during the original scrutiny assessment under section 143(3), which was accepted without any additions or disallowances. The AO invoked Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions under section 115JC but did not reduce the deduction claimed under section 80IB(10). Subsequently, the PCIT initiated revision proceedings alleging discrepancy in stock and questioned the fulfillment of conditions for deduction. The assessee responded with detailed replies and documentary evidence. However, due to COVID-19 and the faceless assessment process, the assessee was unable to respond to notices issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), leading to an ex-parte assessment order under section 144 read with section 263 confirming the addition. Key evidence and findings: The assessee's failure to respond to NFAC notices was noted, but the Tribunal emphasized that the only addition in the consequential order related to the stock mismatch issue already ruled upon by the coordinate bench as beyond PCIT's jurisdiction. Application of law to facts: Since the addition was premised solely on the stock mismatch issue, and the Tribunal had already held that the PCIT could not revise on this ground, the addition was held to be invalid. The question of eligibility for deduction under section 80IB(10) was intertwined with the stock valuation, and since the addition was deleted, the deduction claim stood unaffected. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue contended that the addition was justified based on the orders below and the assessee's failure to respond to notices. The Tribunal acknowledged the procedural lapses but prioritized the jurisdictional issue and the binding coordinate bench ruling. Conclusions: The addition on account of mismatch in closing stock was deleted, and the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80IB(10) was effectively upheld as the conditions were not found to be violated. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held, preserving the legal reasoning verbatim: "Admittedly coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee's case for the year under consideration, in ITA no. 1167/Mum/2021 (supra) held that 263 has been wrongly invoked on the issue of closing stock. The assessing officer in the OGE passed to the 263 order has made addition only on this issue. We therefore hold that, addition deserves to be deleted as this issue gets merged with the order of this Tribunal under such circumstances, the addition deserves to be deleted." Core principles established:
Final determinations on each issue:
|
