2017 (2) TMI 229 - HC - Income Tax

Successful Appeal Against Tax Tribunal's Decision Under Section 263 for Assessment Year 2007-08 Emphasizes Fair Assessment Procedures

The appeal challenging the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to set aside an order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year ... Revision u/s 263 set aside by Tribunal - Held that:- Tribunal has evidently failed to make a distinction between an inference and a presumption. Even in the case of a trial when the question arises as to whether a fact has been proved or not, the question has to be answered on the basis as to whether the evidence adduced probabilises the claim or contention of the plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be. The learned Tribunal failed to notice the facts, which were not in dispute and have not also been disputed before us, which we have quoted above. It was only reasonable to infer that an attempt might have been made to reduce the income by booking fictitious loss. The Commissioner of Income-tax could not have recorded any definite finding in respect of a matter which he intended to refer to the Assessing Officer for further investigation. After recording a final opinion that the loss was in fact fictitious there would be no point in remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer. There can be no doubt that merely on the basis of presumption or surmise or suspicion, an order under section 263 cannot be passed. The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that in this case the inference drawn by the Commissioner of Income-tax was not based either on presumptions or surmises or suspicion. It is true that the assessee has no hand nor has any say with regard to the notings to be made by the Assessing Officer in his order sheet. But that does not mean that an assertion that everything was looked into by the Assessing Officer has to be accepted even though such assertion is either opposed to the admitted facts and circumstances of the case or when the assessee fails to prove, by adducing circumstantial evidence, his assertion. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has not applied its mind to all the relevant materials and has not considered the same and therefore the conclusion drawn is perverse. - Decided in favour of revenue Issues:Challenge to a judgment by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding an order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08.Analysis:1. The appeal raised the substantial question of law regarding the justification of setting aside the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act by the Tribunal. The issue stemmed from the erroneous allowance of a loss from the purchase and sale of cotton knitted fabric without proper inquiry, impacting Revenue interests. The Tribunal's decision was questioned based on the facts and circumstances of the case.2. The appellant had initially shown a total income of &8377;5,44,480 with a claimed loss of &8377;3,17,02,725 from cotton knitted fabric transactions. The assessment under section 143(3) was completed without detailed scrutiny, leading to the subsequent challenge by the Commissioner of Income-tax as being prejudicial to Revenue.3. The Commissioner found the assessment order erroneous due to lack of supporting details, absence of business history in cotton yarn, and suspicious transactions among connected concerns. The Tribunal, however, set aside the Commissioner's order citing insufficient grounds for invoking section 263.4. The Tribunal's decision was criticized for not distinguishing between inference and presumption, overlooking undisputed facts, and misinterpreting the legal precedent cited. The failure to consider relevant materials and the hasty assessment process were highlighted as reasons for the decision being deemed perverse.5. The judgment emphasized the necessity of fair assessment procedures, the burden of proof on the assessee, and the Commissioner's duty to establish factual inaccuracies before invoking corrective measures under section 263. The Tribunal's misinterpretation of legal principles and failure to address crucial aspects of the case led to the appeal's success.6. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the question raised was answered in the negative. Each party was directed to bear their own costs, concluding the legal proceedings surrounding the challenged judgment and the application of section 263 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08.