High Court rules for assessee in appeal against Commissioner invoking Section 263

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II Versus SOFTWARE CONSULTANTS

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II Versus SOFTWARE CONSULTANTS - [2012] 341 ITR 240 Issues:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Whether correctly invoked by the Commissioner of Income Tax.
2. Acceptance of loss return by the Assessing Officer without making any addition.

Issue 1:
The case involved an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax had directed further inquiries into share application money of Rs.47 lacs, alleging that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary verifications and enquiries. The Tribunal quashed the Commissioner's order, stating that the Assessing Officer's failure did not render the assessment order erroneous. The Tribunal highlighted that no addition was made concerning the reasons for reopening, i.e., FDRs worth Rs.20 lacs, and the genuineness of the investment was established by the assessee.

Issue 2:
Regarding the acceptance of the loss return by the Assessing Officer without any addition, it was held that the order was not erroneous. The Commissioner of Income Tax did not dispute that no addition was made based on the reasons recorded during the notice issuance under Section 148. As a result, the assessment order was deemed not erroneous, and the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The High Court referred to various legal precedents, including the Supreme Court and High Court decisions, emphasizing the conditions for assessing or reassessing escaped income under Section 147 and the necessity for reasons to believe in initiating proceedings.

In conclusion, the High Court answered the question of law in favor of the assessee, stating that the Commissioner of Income Tax could not exercise jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act as the assessment order was not erroneous. No costs were awarded in the case.