Invalid Jurisdiction Assumption by Tax Commissioner under Section 263; Appeals Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 invalid, as the Assessing Officer had properly examined Unregistered Dealer purchases. The appeals were partly allowed in favor of the assessee, with other grounds dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of the jurisdiction of Pr.CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Merits of the addition made on account of Unregistered Dealer (URD) purchases.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Correctness of the Jurisdiction of Pr.CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act:

The primary issue raised by the assessee pertains to the jurisdiction of the Pr.CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Pr.CIT had set aside the assessment orders for the years 2009-10 to 2015-16 on the grounds of "complete lack of application of mind" and "incorrect assumption of facts" by the Assessing Officer (AO).

The Tribunal examined the revision order and found that the Pr.CIT's allegations of incorrect assumption of facts were unspecific and vague. The Tribunal noted that the Pr.CIT did not specify which facts were incorrectly assumed by the AO. Consequently, this allegation was rejected in favor of the assessee.

Regarding the allegation of "complete lack of application of mind," the Tribunal referred to the provisions of Section 263 and the newly inserted Explanation 2. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted a thorough examination of the URD purchases over several months, issuing multiple notices and examining extensive documentation. The Tribunal concluded that the AO had made a disallowance after due deliberation and application of mind. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was deemed invalid.

2. Merits of the Addition Made on Account of URD Purchases:

The Pr.CIT had set aside the AO's order for verification of the genuineness of URD purchases, corresponding sales, and reasonable estimation of net profit on bogus purchases. The AO had made ad-hoc additions at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash, which was challenged by the Pr.CIT.

The Tribunal noted that the AO had issued multiple notices and conducted a detailed examination of the URD purchases. The AO had invoked the provisions of Section 131 and scrutinized extensive documentation before making the disallowance at the rate of 2%. The Tribunal found that the AO had applied his mind and taken a considered view on the matter.

The Tribunal also observed that the Pr.CIT's order did not specify the list of enquiries that were left unattended by the AO. The Pr.CIT's allegations were found to be general and unspecific. The Tribunal concluded that the Pr.CIT's decision to take another possible view was not permitted in law.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalid, and the AO had conducted a thorough examination and applied his mind in making the disallowance. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed in favor of the assessee, and the other grounds raised by the assessee became academic and were dismissed.

Order Pronounced:

The order was pronounced on the 21st day of November, 2019, and all seven appeals of the assessee were partly allowed.

---