2020 (12) TMI 299 - AT - Income Tax

Income Tax Tribunal Overturns PCIT's Order, Rules in Favor of Assessee

The tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's order under section 263 was not justified as the Assessing Officer had examined the ... Revision u/s 263 - whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous, insofar as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue? - PCIT has first questioned the issue of agricultural income declared by the assessee and came to the conclusion that although the Assessing Officer has rejected the claim of agricultural income, but failed to make additions to returned income as unaccounted income of the assessee - second issue questioned by the PCIT is unaccounted investments in fixed deposits and according to him, the assessee has failed to explain source of income for investments in fixed deposits - HELD THAT:- AO has considered the issue of agricultural income declared by the assessee and discussed the issue in light of various evidences furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment, and came to the conclusion that agricultural income claimed by the assessee is incorrect. However, chose not to make any addition to returned income on the ground that the assessee has not filed statement of affairs considering the agricultural income, as source of income to explain any asset / investments. Assessing Officer, in our considered view, taken one of the possible view - once an issue has been examined by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and called for necessary details from the assesse, it is presumed that the AO has examined the issue and has applied his mind to relevant facts in light of relevant provisions of the Act. Similarly, once the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible view, which may not be acceptable to PCIT, then also PCIT cannot hold the order to be erroneous, insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. In this case, the view taken by the Assessing Officer, insofar as the claim of agricultural income is one of the possible view and such view may not be acceptable to the PCIT, but the same cannot be a reason for PCIT to revise the assessment order u/s.263 . Unaccounted investments in fixed deposits - AO has discussed the issue of unaccounted investments in fixed deposits in his assessment order and has recorded categorical finding to the effect that the assessee has explained source of income for investments in FDR. The Assessing Officer after accepting the source of income for investments has verified the fixed deposits and consequent interest on said FDR and has made additions towards accrued interest on the said fixed deposits, wherever the assessee has not offered the accrued interest for taxation - Assessing Officer has examined the issue of investments in fixed deposits and after considering necessary evidences filed by the assessee has accepted the source of income for investments - PCIT is incorrect in coming to the conclusion that Assessing Officer has not examined the issue and applied his mind insofar as investments in fixed deposits - once the Assessing Officer has taken one of the two views permissible in law on which the PCIT does not agree and which resulted in loss of revenue, it cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is completely unsustainable in law. PCIT has erred in revising the assessment order u/s.263 of the Act as erroneous, insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Hence, we set aside the order passed by the PCIT under section 263 of the Act and restore the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.153A r.w.s.143(3) - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's (PCIT) order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.2. Basis of passing the section 263 orders based on audit objections.3. Non-consideration of unaccounted investments in fixed deposits.4. Unproved agricultural income.Detailed Analysis:Validity of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's (PCIT) order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act:The appellant challenged the PCIT's order under section 263, arguing that it was bad in law and against the facts. The PCIT issued a notice under section 263, considering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue on two grounds: non-consideration of unaccounted investments in fixed deposits and unproved agricultural income. The PCIT concluded that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to make necessary inquiries or verification, thus rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.Basis of passing the section 263 orders based on audit objections:The appellant contended that the basis for the section 263 orders, which was an audit objection, was unsustainable. The PCIT, however, maintained that the AO did not adequately examine the issues of agricultural income and unaccounted investments in fixed deposits, which justified the revision under section 263.Non-consideration of unaccounted investments in fixed deposits:The PCIT argued that the AO failed to examine the source of unaccounted investments in fixed deposits, despite calling for details during the assessment. The appellant countered that the AO had indeed examined the issue, accepted the source of income for investments, and made additions towards accrued interest on these fixed deposits. The tribunal found that the AO had considered the necessary evidence and taken a possible view, which the PCIT could not simply disregard unless it was unsustainable in law.Unproved agricultural income:The PCIT noted that although the AO rejected the claim of agricultural income, no addition was made to the returned income. The appellant argued that the AO rejected the claim due to a lack of solid evidence but did not add it to the income as it was not used to explain any investments. The tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the AO's view was one of the possible views and could not be termed erroneous merely because the PCIT disagreed.Conclusion:The tribunal concluded that the AO had examined both issues during the assessment and taken possible views. Therefore, the PCIT's revision of the assessment order under section 263 was not justified. The tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and restored the original assessment orders for all the assessment years involved. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.