Tribunal quashes revisional jurisdiction, finds AO's actions proper.

The Tribunal held that the Second Ld. Pr. CIT's invocation of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act was null and void as the Second AO had complied with the directions given by the First Ld. Pr. CIT and conducted a proper enquiry. The Tribunal found that the Second Ld. Pr. CIT could not invoke revisional jurisdiction without demonstrating flaws in the AO's enquiry or the unsustainability of the AO's view in law. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the impugned order of the Second Ld. Pr. CIT.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the invocation of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Examination of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share capital and premium received by the assessee.
3. Compliance with the directions given by the first revisional order.
4. Applicability of Explanation 2(c) to Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the invocation of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The main grievance of the assessee was against the action of the Ld. Pr. CIT invoking his second revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act against the action of the AO, who framed the re-assessment order pursuant to the first revisional order dated 31.03.2016. The assessee contended that the second revisional jurisdiction was invoked without satisfying the requisite conditions as stipulated under Section 263 of the Act, making it without jurisdiction and bad in law.

2. Examination of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share capital and premium received by the assessee:
The assessee had filed its return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 declaring NIL income. The AO noted that the assessee received share capital of Rs. 40 lakhs and a premium of Rs. 19,98,00,000, totaling Rs. 20,38,00,000. The AO asked the assessee to produce documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital. Despite filing submissions and documents, the assessee failed to produce the directors of the share subscribing companies, leading the AO to make an addition of Rs. 20,38,00,000 under Section 68 of the Act.

The first revisional order by the First Ld. Pr. CIT found that the AO had issued notices under Section 133(6) to all share applicants, who replied with documents proving their identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The First Ld. Pr. CIT concluded that there was a violation of natural justice and directed a de novo assessment.

3. Compliance with the directions given by the first revisional order:
In the second round of reassessment, the Second AO framed the re-assessment order dated 15.09.2016, making an addition of Rs. 2,919 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Second Ld. Pr. CIT, however, issued a show-cause notice and set aside the reassessment order, directing de novo adjudication, citing lack of enquiry by the AO.

The assessee contended that the Second AO had complied with the directions of the First Ld. Pr. CIT by examining the books of account, bank accounts of the assessee and investors, and verifying the source of share application money, identity of investors, and genuineness of transactions. The Second AO had summoned the directors of the share applicant companies, who appeared and provided the necessary documents. The Second AO did not find anything adverse and accepted the share capital and premium collected by the assessee.

4. Applicability of Explanation 2(c) to Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Second Ld. Pr. CIT invoked Explanation 2(c) to Section 263(1) of the Act, stating that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue due to lack of enquiry. The Tribunal noted that the Second AO had conducted the necessary enquiry and verified the documents, and the view taken by the AO was plausible and in line with judicial precedents. The Tribunal held that the Second Ld. Pr. CIT could not invoke revisional jurisdiction without showing that the AO's enquiry was flawed or that the AO's view was unsustainable in law.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Second AO had complied with the directions of the First Ld. Pr. CIT and conducted a proper enquiry. The Second Ld. Pr. CIT's invocation of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was without satisfying the condition precedent and was therefore null and void. The Tribunal quashed the impugned order of the Second Ld. Pr. CIT.

---