ITAT sets aside revisional order under section 263 finding adequate enquiry by AO despite revenue loss

The ITAT Mumbai set aside the Principal Commissioner's order invoking revisional jurisdiction under section 263, ruling that the AO had conducted adequate enquiry. The AO had processed the return under section 143(1), selected it for scrutiny under CASS, issued statutory notices, examined the assessee's responses regarding total loss, book loss under section 115JB, interest income disallowances, section 80IA deductions, SEZ unit income, and section 14A disallowances. The tribunal held that mere loss of revenue cannot be termed prejudicial to revenue interest, and the assessment was properly framed after considering necessary details and factual examination, not in a hasty manner.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of invoking revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Examination of the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80IAB.
3. Alleged calculation errors in the assessment order.
4. Adequacy of enquiries made by the Assessing Officer during the assessment.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of invoking revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The assessee challenged the invocation of revisional jurisdiction under section 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT), arguing that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant provision and the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2015, which inserted Explanation 2 to section 263, effective from 01/06/2015. The Tribunal emphasized that revisional jurisdiction can be invoked only when the order is passed without making necessary inquiries or verification, allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim, not in accordance with any order, direction, or instruction issued by the Board under section 119, or not in accordance with any decision prejudicial to the assessee rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court.

2. Examination of the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80IAB:
The assessee argued that the deduction under section 80IAB was consistently allowed in previous assessment years and should not be disallowed in the current year. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made due inquiries and examined the details related to the deduction claimed under section 80IAB. The AO had considered the details and explanations provided by the assessee, and the relief was granted after making due inquiries. The Tribunal found no merit in the assertion made on behalf of the Revenue that the assessment was made without making due inquiry.

3. Alleged calculation errors in the assessment order:
The assessee contended that any calculation errors could be rectified under section 154 of the Act and should not be a subject matter of section 263. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that calculation errors do not justify invoking revisional jurisdiction under section 263. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO had examined the details and made necessary calculations, and any errors could be corrected through rectification proceedings.

4. Adequacy of enquiries made by the Assessing Officer during the assessment:
The Tribunal analyzed the scope of revision under section 263 and referred to various judicial pronouncements, including the decisions in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT (243 ITR 83) and CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167). It was held that there is a distinction between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry." If there is an inquiry, even if inadequate, it would not give occasion to the CIT to pass an order under section 263 merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. The Tribunal found that the AO had made due inquiries, examined the necessary details, and applied his mind to the facts of the case. Therefore, the assessment order could not be termed as erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was passed after due inquiries and verification, and the AO had applied his mind to the facts of the case. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Pr. CIT invoking revisional jurisdiction under section 263, as it was not within the parameters of the law. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the revisional order was quashed.

---