2017 (12) TMI 1816 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Allowed: Revision Proceedings Invalid under IT Act Section 263.

M/s. M. Hanumatha Rao Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1, Ballary

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified in invoking revision proceedings under Section ... Revision u/s 263 by CIT - transaction of sale of Iron Ore through E-auction - AO had failed to enquire into the claims of deduction on account of 15% of E-auction sale proceeds and the compensation paid for illegal mining and dumping on the illegal site - HELD THAT:- The appellant had not made any direct sales. The stock is under the control of the Central Empowered Committee. It is only the Central Empowered Committee alone which is empowered to conduct the Eauction in terms of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order. The material factor to be taken into consideration is that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had passed the order after the end of the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration. In the given facts of the case, it cannot be said that the sale proceeds had accrued to the appellant though it was following mercantile system of accounting as there was no accrual of right to receive payment, having regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court laid down in the cases of CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co [1962 (3) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] Thus, it is clear that the sale proceeds had accrued to the appellant only by virtue of the order of the Director of Department of Mines and Geology vide proceedings No.DMG/MONCOM/E-Auction/2012- 13 dated 03.01.2013. The taxability or otherwise of it can be considered only during the period ending on 31.03.2013, whereas the assessment year before us is pertaining to the previous year ending on 31.03.2012. As appellant had offered an income which is not assessable for that year. Even after the deductions, there was income offered to tax which is not otherwise assessable for the assessment year under consideration. It is the duty of the AO to assess the correct income in the right assessment year. However, this failure of the AO had not resulted in any prejudice to the revenue. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO, though erroneous, but cannot be termed as prejudicial to the interests of revenue - pre-conditions for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, the twin conditions that order is erroneous and also prejudial to interests of revenue are required to be satisfied simultaneously - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Validity of exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IT Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.2. Deductibility of 15% of E-auction sale proceeds retained by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC).3. Deductibility of compensation paid for illegal mining and dumping.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Exercising Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IT Act:The appellant challenged the Principal CIT's jurisdiction under Section 263, arguing that the original scrutiny assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) had consistently adopted the same view year after year after thorough examination and satisfaction. The appellant cited the Supreme Court judgments in Malabar Industrial Co., Ltd vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) to support their claim that the twin conditions for invoking revisional powers under Section 263 were absent. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the AO's failure to assess the correct income in the right assessment year did not result in prejudice to the Revenue. Therefore, the assessment order, though erroneous, was not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, making the Principal CIT's revision order invalid in law.2. Deductibility of 15% of E-auction Sale Proceeds Retained by the CEC:The Principal CIT issued a show cause notice proposing to revise the assessment order because the AO failed to assess Rs. 2,59,09,307, being 15% of the E-auction proceeds retained by the CEC. The Principal CIT considered this amount as an application of income and not allowable as a deduction. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had mandated the retention of 15% of the E-auction proceeds for setting up a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for ameliorative and mitigative measures. The Tribunal found that the sale proceeds accrued to the appellant only by virtue of the order of the Director of Department of Mines and Geology dated 03.01.2013, which was after the end of the assessment year under consideration. Consequently, the sale proceeds were not assessable for the year in question, and the appellant had offered an income not assessable for that year. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's failure did not prejudice the Revenue, and thus, the Principal CIT's revision order was unjustified.3. Deductibility of Compensation Paid for Illegal Mining and Dumping:The Principal CIT also proposed revising the assessment order to disallow Rs. 6,05,00,000 paid by the appellant as compensation for illegal mining and dumping, considering it penal in nature and not deductible under Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal observed that the compensation was paid pursuant to the Supreme Court's order, which was passed after the end of the assessment year. The Tribunal emphasized that the compensation and 15% retention were interlinked with the E-auction sale proceeds and occurred subsequent to the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, the appellant's income offered for tax, even after deductions, was not assessable for the year in question. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's failure did not result in prejudice to the Revenue, and the Principal CIT's revision order was invalid.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, holding that the Principal CIT was not justified in invoking revision proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue were not satisfied simultaneously. The Tribunal set aside the Principal CIT's order and pronounced the decision in the open court on 19th December 2017.