2025 (6) TMI 2016 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - as per CIT AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) without carrying out proper verification on various issues like difference in value of assets shown in the balance sheet and the value of assets shown in the computation of income difference in value of purchases shown in reply dated 07.09.2019 and the value shown in the profit and loss account and nature of cash deposit made after demonetization. HELD THAT - AO was required to verify the cash deposit made by the petitioners in the bank account during the demonetization period as per the Annexure to the SOP which contains the details as per the cash deposited out of earlier income or savings cash out of receipts exempt from tax cash withdrawn out of bank account cash received from identifiable persons with PAN and without PAN cash received from un-identifiable persons and cash disclosed or to be disclosed under PMGKY. The respondent PCIT has prima facie observed that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order without verification which ought to have been made. We are not inclined to examine the case on merits as these petitions are not required to be entertained in view of the order passed in case of Piyara Lal 2017 (12) TMI 1895 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT considering the facts of the case and the petitioners if so advised may submit objections against the show cause notices and if any adverse order is passed the petitioners shall have alternate remedy to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal in accordance with law. Petitions are accordingly dismissed as not entertainable. However with a view to enable the petitioners to submit objections the respondents shall consider such objections on merits if submitted within a period four weeks from today and decide the impugned notices in accordance with law.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Court in these petitions revolve around the validity and jurisdictional competence of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) to issue notices under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") challenging completed assessment orders under section 143(3) of the Act. Specifically, the issues include:

1. Whether the PCIT was justified in invoking revisional powers under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to conduct proper inquiry and verification relating to cash deposits made during the demonetization period for Assessment Year 2017-2018.

2. Whether the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) of the Act, which involved scrutiny and additions to income, were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue so as to warrant revision under section 263.

3. Whether the petitioners had alternative efficacious remedies available, such as filing appeals against any adverse orders, and whether writ petitions challenging show-cause notices under section 263 are maintainable.

4. The applicability and compliance of the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) regarding verification of cash deposits during demonetization, and whether non-compliance by the AO renders the assessment orders erroneous and prejudicial.

5. The extent of the revisional powers under section 263 of the Act and the threshold for their exercise, particularly in light of judicial precedents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Jurisdiction of PCIT to issue notice under section 263 challenging assessment orders completed under section 143(3) of the Act

The legal framework governing this issue is section 263 of the Act, which empowers the PCIT or Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceeding and revise the order if it is "erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue." Explanation 2 to section 263 clarifies that an order is deemed erroneous and prejudicial if it was passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made, or if it allowed relief without inquiry, or if it contravened any Board instructions or judicial decisions.

The Court noted reliance on several precedents, including the Supreme Court decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., which sets the dual conditions for invoking section 263: the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial. The Gujarat High Court in JMC Projects (India) Limited emphasized that revisional powers cannot be exercised merely on the basis that the AO's methodology was unsatisfactory if the income has been assessed and tax levied. The revisional jurisdiction is not meant for improving or rewriting the assessment order but only to correct orders fundamentally flawed and prejudicial to Revenue.

The Court also referred to the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kamal Galani, where it was held that once the AO has made detailed inquiries, the Commissioner cannot reopen issues on mere apprehensions or surmises. Similarly, in Siddhi Infrabuild (P) Ltd., the revisional jurisdiction was held not to be invoked where the AO had made inquiries on the issue.

Applying these principles, the Court observed that the AO had conducted scrutiny assessments, rejected the books of accounts, and made additions based on gross profit rates. Thus, the income was assessed and tax levied. Consequently, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 could not be invoked merely because the PCIT was dissatisfied with the AO's approach or desired better reasoning.

2. Verification of cash deposits during demonetization and compliance with CBDT SOPs

The petitions related to cash deposits made during the demonetization period (post-November 8, 2016). The PCIT issued notices under section 263 on the ground that the AO failed to carry out proper verification of these cash deposits as mandated by CBDT Instruction No. 03/2017 dated 21.02.2017 and Instruction No. 04/2017 dated 03.03.2017. These instructions prescribed a detailed procedure for preliminary e-verification of cash transactions, emphasizing that the AO must verify each record as 'Acceptable' or 'Non-Acceptable' using an online platform, without independent third-party inquiries or personal attendance.

The PCIT contended that the AO did not follow these instructions and passed assessment orders without proper inquiry, resulting in orders that were erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue. The Court examined the SOP and noted that the AO was required to verify the source of cash deposits, quantify undisclosed income if explanations were unsatisfactory, and document verification remarks on the portal.

The Court acknowledged the PCIT's prima facie observation that such verification was not done. However, it refrained from delving into the merits of whether the AO indeed failed in his duty, as the proper procedure would be to allow the PCIT to proceed with the revision under section 263 after considering the petitioners' replies to the show-cause notices.

3. Maintainability of writ petitions against show-cause notices under section 263

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Piyara Lal, which held that writ petitions challenging show-cause notices under section 263 are not maintainable. The appropriate course is to submit objections to the show-cause notice and, if an adverse order is passed, to challenge that order through statutory appeal mechanisms. The Court also cited the Madras High Court decision in Hemalatha Rajan, which emphasized that the PCIT must consider whether the AO had perused and verified documents before invoking revisional powers.

Accordingly, the Court held that the present petitions challenging the show-cause notices under section 263 are premature and not entertainable. The petitioners must first submit their objections to the PCIT, who will decide the matter on merits.

4. Treatment of competing arguments and application of law to facts

The petitioners argued that the AO had conducted detailed scrutiny, made additions, and rejected books of accounts, thus properly addressing the issue of cash deposits. They contended that the PCIT could not assume revisional jurisdiction since the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial. They relied on precedents holding that revisional powers cannot be used to improve an order or correct every error.

The Revenue, through the PCIT, argued that the AO failed to comply with CBDT instructions for verification of cash deposits during demonetization, rendering the assessment orders erroneous and prejudicial. The PCIT invoked Explanation 2(a) to section 263, which allows revision where inquiries or verification that should have been made were not conducted.

The Court balanced these arguments by recognizing the AO's scrutiny but also acknowledging the PCIT's prima facie finding of non-compliance with CBDT SOPs. However, the Court emphasized the procedural requirement that the petitioners must first respond to the show-cause notices and exhaust statutory remedies before challenging the revision jurisdiction.

5. Final conclusions on each issue

The Court concluded that:

- The revisional jurisdiction under section 263 requires the assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue. Mere dissatisfaction with the AO's methodology or desire for a better reasoned order does not suffice.

- The AO had conducted scrutiny assessments and made additions; hence, the orders cannot be said to be fundamentally erroneous or prejudicial on the facts before the Court.

- The PCIT's contention of non-compliance with CBDT SOPs is a matter to be adjudicated during the revision proceedings after considering the petitioners' objections.

- Writ petitions challenging show-cause notices under section 263 are not maintainable; the petitioners must submit objections and exhaust alternative remedies.

- The petitions are dismissed as not entertainable, with liberty granted to the petitioners to file objections within four weeks, which the PCIT must consider on merits.

Significant Holdings

"Powers under section 263 of the Act are not meant for improving an order of assessment. As long as the income is assessed and tax as per the law levied, the order cannot be stated to be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and, therefore, not revisable."

"The Commissioner could not have issued the impugned notice seeking to revise the order of assessment on the premise that the assessing officer did not apply the correct parameters and though taxed the same income, by applying wrong methodology."

"No writ petition is maintainable against a show-cause notice under section 263(1) of the Act when the notice is self-speaking and self-explanatory. The petitioner may submit objections against the show-cause notice and if any adverse order is passed, he shall have remedy in accordance with law."

"An order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial if it was passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made."

The Court preserved the core principle that revisional powers under section 263 are to be exercised sparingly and only where there is a clear error prejudicial to Revenue, and not to re-examine every aspect of an assessment order. The procedural safeguards, including opportunity to be heard and adherence to CBDT instructions, are critical in such revision proceedings.