2025 (6) TMI 2009 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Validity of Assessment was completed u/s 153A read with Section 143(3) wherein the unsecured loan received by the assessee company were sought to be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - HELD THAT - We find that the issue of addition made on account of unsecured loan treating the same to be bogus was subject matter of dispute before the ld CIT(A). Even if the interest paid on such alleged bogus unsecured loans was allowed as deduction by the AO the same could be subjected to disallowance by the CIT(A) itself using his enhancement powers as the issue of interest disallowance emanates out of issue which is in dispute before the ld CIT(A). Hence the disallowance of interest was well within the enhancement powers available to CIT(A) and the same cannot be construed as a new source of income. Had it been a new source of income then the CIT(A) cannot make such disallowance using his enhancement powers. In that scenario the ld PCIT would be justified in invoking revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act for taking care of the omission made by the ld AO. But that is not the case in the present appeal. As stated earlier the principal portion of the unsecured loans was already subject matter of dispute before the ld CIT(A) and interest portion could have been very well dealt by the ld CIT(A) himself using his enhancement powers. Accordingly the same cannot be subject matter of revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act by the ld PCIT. We hold that the invocation of revision jurisdiction by the ld PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is wrong and hence revision order is to be quashed. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question considered by the Tribunal was whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) against the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) of the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal examined:

• Whether the PCIT could invoke revision jurisdiction under section 263 in respect of the disallowance of interest paid on unsecured loans, when the principal issue of the genuineness of the unsecured loans was already under appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)).
• Whether the invocation of revision jurisdiction under section 263 was valid in relation to the disallowance of interest paid on unsecured loans treated as accommodation entries and unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act.
• Whether the PCIT's invocation of revision jurisdiction on the issue of interest under section 234A of the Act was valid, given that this issue was not raised in the show cause notice and thus violated the principles of natural justice.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of invoking revision jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act in respect of disallowance of interest on unsecured loans when the principal issue of genuineness of loans was under appeal before CIT(A)

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 263 of the Act empowers the PCIT to revise any order passed by an Assessing Officer (AO) if such order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. However, the jurisdiction under section 263 is not to be exercised if the issue is already pending adjudication before the appellate authority. The principle that the revision jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be invoked while the appeal is pending before the CIT(A) was emphasized by the Madras High Court in the case of Smt Renuka Philip Vs. ITO (409 ITR 567), which held that revision jurisdiction is barred when the issue is sub judice before the Commissioner.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the principal issue concerning the unsecured loans being treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 was already under appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had deleted the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credits after finding that the assessee had satisfactorily discharged all three ingredients of section 68: identity of lenders, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The interest paid on such loans was an offshoot of this principal issue.

The Tribunal reasoned that the disallowance of interest paid on the unsecured loans could have been dealt with by the CIT(A) using his enhancement powers since it emanated from the same disputed transaction. The Tribunal distinguished between a new source of income and an offshoot of an existing issue under appeal, holding that the interest disallowance was not a new source of income but directly connected to the principal issue under dispute.

Key evidence and findings: The CIT(A) had already deleted the addition made under section 68 on the unsecured loans and had the power to enhance the order to disallow interest if warranted. The PCIT's revision order under section 263 was passed while the appeal was pending before the CIT(A).

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle from the Renuka Philip case to hold that the PCIT's invocation of revision jurisdiction was impermissible because the issue was sub judice before the CIT(A). The enhancement powers of the CIT(A) were sufficient to address any disallowance of interest.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the AO had committed a gross error by not disallowing interest on unsecured loans treated as bogus and that the PCIT was justified in invoking revision jurisdiction. The Tribunal rejected this, emphasizing that the issue was already under appeal and that the PCIT could not circumvent the appellate process.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of revision jurisdiction under section 263 in respect of disallowance of interest on unsecured loans was erroneous and quashed the revision order.

Issue 2: Validity of invoking revision jurisdiction under section 263 in respect of interest charged under section 234A of the Act for AY 2014-15

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principles of natural justice require that a show cause notice be issued to the assessee specifying the grounds on which revision jurisdiction is proposed to be exercised. Any issue not raised in the notice cannot be decided in the revision order.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the PCIT had raised an issue regarding the erroneous charging of interest under section 234A of the Act by the AO. However, this issue was not part of the show cause notice issued to the assessee under section 263. The issue emerged only in the revision order.

Key evidence and findings: Absence of any show cause notice or opportunity to the assessee to respond on the chargeability of interest under section 234A.

Application of law to facts: Since the issue was not put to the assessee in the show cause notice, the invocation of revision jurisdiction on this ground violated the principles of natural justice.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue did not successfully counter the natural justice violation argument.

Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the revision order insofar as it related to the interest charged under section 234A of the Act.

Issue 3: Applicability of findings to subsequent assessment years (AY 2014-15 to AY 2019-20)

Relevant legal framework: Identical issues arising in subsequent years can be decided on the basis of the lead case decision, subject to fact variations.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the facts and issues for AY 2014-15 to AY 2019-20 were identical to those for AY 2013-14. The same reasoning applied to quash the revision orders for these years.

Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals for all the subsequent years on the same grounds.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"When the appeal is pending before the Commissioner, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act is barred."

"The disallowance of interest paid on unsecured loans emanates out of the issue which is in dispute before the CIT(A). Hence, the disallowance of interest was well within the enhancement powers available to the CIT(A) and the same cannot be construed as a new source of income."

"The issue which is not even put to the assessee in the initial show cause or in the subsequent show cause notice but had emanated directly only in the revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act violates the principle of natural justice."

The Tribunal conclusively held that the PCIT's invocation of revision jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act was unjustified both on the ground of pendency of appeal before the CIT(A) and violation of natural justice principles. Consequently, the revision orders passed under section 263 were quashed, and the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 to AY 2019-20 were allowed.