TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when the matters on merits are already settled by this tribunal in assessee s own case. Infact the ld. AO had followed judicial discipline, which has been completely and conveniently ignored by the ld. PCIT in the instant case. Apart from this, we also find that the ld. AO had indeed made specific enquiries on the very same issues that were raised by the ld. PCIT in his revision order. Sufficient enquiries were indeed made by the various assessing officers in the course of assessment proceedings under faceless regime. It is not in dispute that the assessee had indeed filed complete details regarding the queries raised by the various assessing officers. Infact most of the queries raised were even repetitive in nature and details were filed by the assessee repeatedly. Moreover, we find that the AO under the faceless regime had even asked for the scrutiny assessment orders for the Asst Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 which were also filed by the assessee before him. Merely for substitution of a view by the ld. PCIT on matters already on record, revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act cannot be initiated by the ld. PCIT. Further revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act cannot be ini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etc. for advancement of cultural, educational and intellectual activities and providing hostel accommodation and catering activities on loss or no profit-no loss, are as basic to the activities of IIC as is for any educational institution or a religious institution or on the lines of running of Guest Houses and catering facility by the Income-tax Department. (c) quoting the receipts and application of fund of IIC at Page 12 of the Order but ignoring the fact that interest income is at Rs 8,39,87,291/- and surplus is at only Rs 4,50,63,233/-, so providing venue, hostel and catering facilities are at a loss, 3 That various adverse findings recorded in the notice u/s 263 of the Act and, also in impugned order are factually incorrect, vague, legally misconceived and untenable. Prayer : It is therefore prayed that: (a) The proceedings before AO consequent to Order u/s 263 be stayed till pendency of this appeal (b) Revision order dated 19.10.2022 under section 263 be quashed and appeal be allowed. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a society registered under the Societies Registrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stages. 5. The ld. PCIT stated in tabular form in Para 4.1. of his order that though the assessee had succeeded on all the issues on merits in earlier years, the appeals of the revenue are pending at various stages in High Court and Supreme Court as the case may be. Since the matter is sub-judice, the ld. PCIT held that the decision of the appellate authorities including the High Courts were not accepted by the revenue. In respect of applicability of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, the ld. PCIT observed that even if it is presumed that a query is raised by the ld. AO regarding the same, the eventual finding given thereon is clearly erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue since the underlying issue is still being contested before the judicial authorities. The ld. CIT(A) had deleted the additions made in the scrutiny assessments for the Asst Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 and since further appeals were preferred by the revenue before the Tribunal against those orders, the orders of the ld. CIT(A) were not accepted by the revenue. With regard to the issue of assessee claiming refund and giving details regarding the accumulation of income and amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same calls for an in-depth understanding and deeper investigation into assessee s accounts. 6.5. Further , the differential treatment in terms of services (like library, hostel booking, dining bar facilities are exclusively available to members and / or their guests only) as well as tariffs for members and non-members imply that the main activities of the assessee are not for the benefit of public at large; but in the nature of trade, commerce or business or providing service in relation thereto for a consideration. 6.6. The ld. PCIT asked the assessee to prove how expenditure of Rs 3007.98 lakhs under the head Establishment correlates with the objects and activities undertaken. In response, the assessee submitted that it is related to salary and benefits provided to IIC employees and that all employees work in the Centre for fulifiling the objectives and activities undertaken by the Centre. The ld. PCIT noted that the assessee has not correlated this expense with its objects and activities undertaken. 6.7. From the aforesaid analysis, the ld. PCIT concluded that the assessee s case squarely falls within the ambit of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and that since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arious assessing officers. Infact most of the queries raised were even repetitive in nature and details were filed by the assessee repeatedly. Moreover, we find that the ld. AO under the faceless regime had even asked for the scrutiny assessment orders for the Asst Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 which were also filed by the assessee before him. Since the issues on merits were duly settled in favour of the assessee, the ld. AO by duly respecting the judicial discipline had accepted the contentions of the assessee and completed the assessment accepting the returned income. While this is so, we hold that the order of the ld. AO cannot be treated as erroneous merely because the view taken by the ld. AO is not acceptable to the ld. PCIT. Merely for substitution of a view by the ld. PCIT on matters already on record, revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act cannot be initiated by the ld. PCIT. Further revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act cannot be initiated for inadequate enquiry and the same could be done only for lack of enquiry. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Max India Ltd reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC) ; Malabar Industrial Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
