Tribunal quashes PCIT order under Sec 263, emphasizes AO's thorough verification.

The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) had adequately verified and examined the details provided by the assessee. The appeal was allowed, with the Tribunal emphasizing that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the AO's order was erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The Tribunal highlighted the significance of the AO's satisfaction and the thoroughness of enquiries conducted during the assessment proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Delay in filing the appeal.
3. Verification and examination of donations and expenses by the Assessing Officer (AO).
4. Compliance with procedural requirements and adequacy of enquiries by the AO.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act:
The primary issue was whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act by treating the order passed by the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The PCIT contended that the AO completed the assessment in a perfunctory manner without adequate verification or cross-checks, particularly concerning non-corpus and corpus donations and total expenditure claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted due verification and examination of the details provided by the assessee, including donations and expenses. The Tribunal emphasized that once a possible view had been taken by the AO, it could not be subject to revision merely because the PCIT disagreed with that view. The Tribunal referenced several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decisions in Gabriel India Ltd. and Nirav Modi, to support its conclusion that the AO's order was not erroneous.

2. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appeal was initially time-barred by 200 days. However, the Tribunal noted that the delay was due to the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns. The Government of India had issued notifications extending the time limit for filing appeals. In light of these notifications and the circumstances, the Tribunal condoned the delay, admitting the appeal for adjudication.

3. Verification and Examination of Donations and Expenses by the AO:
The PCIT's grievance included the lack of verification of donations and expenses by the AO. The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed verified the details of donations and expenses. The assessee had provided comprehensive details, including the names, addresses, PANs of donors, and the mode of receipt of donations. The AO had also examined the expenses incurred on the objects of the trust and establishment expenses. The Tribunal noted that the AO had raised several queries during the assessment proceedings, which were duly replied to by the assessee. The AO's acceptance of the return of income after due examination was considered a possible view, and thus, the order could not be termed as erroneous.

4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements and Adequacy of Enquiries by the AO:
The Tribunal observed that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries and verified the necessary details during the assessment proceedings. The PCIT's direction to the AO to re-verify the same details was seen as an attempt to make fishing and roving enquiries, which is not permissible. The Tribunal cited the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., which emphasized that for invoking jurisdiction under Section 263, the PCIT must conduct an inquiry and establish that the assessment order is unsustainable in law. The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT had not conducted such an inquiry and had merely directed the AO to re-verify the details, which was not justified.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Act, holding that the AO had conducted due verification and examination of the details provided by the assessee. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the Tribunal emphasized that the PCIT had not established how the AO's order was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Tribunal also highlighted the importance of the AO's satisfaction and the extent of enquiries conducted during the assessment proceedings.

---