2020 (1) TMI 687 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Voids Tax Order: Principal Commissioner Exceeded Authority During Ongoing Dispute Panel Review.

The Tribunal quashed the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deeming it void ab initio. It held that the Principal Commissioner of Income ... Revision u/s 263 - order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C - the same was subject to review by the Dispute Resolutions Panel (DRP) - Additional grounds raised - HELD THAT:- Additional grounds raised by the Ld. AR are legal ground, in light of decision of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. [1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] we admit these ground Order under Section 263 was passed against the draft assessment order. The said draft assessment order was adjudicated before the DRP, therefore, it was in the matter of scrutiny before the Resolution Panel. The draft assessment order is not a final order or is not any order which is described u/s 263. It is a proposal given to the assessee upon which the assessee has a right to raise objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. This mechanism is developed in respect of certain specialized matters. The Dispute Resolution Panel has a full authority to direct/propose certain additions or to delete certain additions. Therefore, it is a foolproof mechanism which cannot be doubted by Pr. CIT by invoking Section 263 which is a revisional power in respect of final assessment order or any order but not to a proposal which is called draft assessment order. Thus, we are allowing additional grounds which are preliminary grounds raised in respect Issues:1. Revision of assessment order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to initiate proceedings under Section 263.3. Validity of the draft assessment order and its review by the Dispute Resolution Panel.Analysis:Issue 1: Revision of assessment order under Section 263The appellant filed an appeal against the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The appellant contended that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Principal Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to reexamine the issues, citing lack of inquiries or verifications during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the draft assessment order was subject to review by the Dispute Resolution Panel, making it a proposal rather than a final order. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the order under Section 263 as it was deemed bad in law and void ab initio.Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner to initiate proceedings under Section 263The appellant argued that the Principal Commissioner wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 263 and exceeded the scope and powers granted under the Act. The appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Company Ltd vs. CIT to challenge the jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner. The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the appellant, emphasizing that the draft assessment order was under the scrutiny of the Dispute Resolution Panel, and the Principal Commissioner's invocation of Section 263 was improper.Issue 3: Validity of the draft assessment order and its review by the Dispute Resolution PanelThe appellant raised objections regarding the jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner to initiate proceedings under Section 263 when the draft assessment order was already being reviewed by the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's argument, stating that the draft assessment order was not a final order and was open to objections before the Panel. The Tribunal emphasized that the Dispute Resolution Panel had the authority to propose additions or deletions, making it a comprehensive mechanism that could not be questioned by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the order under Section 263 as it was found to be legally flawed.