High Court overturns Assessing Officer's order for lack of reconciliation, deems Principal Commissioner's non-speaking order under section 263 inadequate.

The High Court found discrepancies in interest income and other incomes were not reconciled during assessment proceedings, leading to the Assessing Officer's order being deemed prejudicial to revenue's interests. The Principal Commissioner's order under section 263 lacked reasoning and failed to address submissions, rendering it non-speaking. The CIT's decision to set aside the assessment order without findings was questioned. The Court remanded the matter back to the Principal Commissioner for fresh consideration, granting the appellant the opportunity to submit additional information for a new decision with proper reasoning.

---

---

Issues:
1. Tribunal's justification of Assessing Officer's order being prejudicial to revenue's interests
2. Validity of Principal Commissioner's order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
3. CIT's decision to set aside assessment order without findings on merits
4. Applicability of Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act for AY 2014-15
5. Consideration of material by Principal Commissioner before deeming assessment order prejudicial
6. Principal Commissioner's opinion on completion of assessment without proper inquiries
7. Impact of circular no. 3 of 2016 on Assessing Officer's discretion under section 92C(3)
8. Error in assessment order for not referring case to Transfer Pricing Officer

Analysis:
1. The High Court assessed whether the Tribunal was correct in deeming the Assessing Officer's order prejudicial to revenue's interests. It was noted that discrepancies in interest income and other incomes were not reconciled during assessment proceedings, leading to the conclusion that the assessing officer failed to address these issues adequately.
2. The Court examined the validity of the Principal Commissioner's order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. It was found that the order lacked sufficient reasoning and failed to address the submissions made by the assessee, rendering it a non-speaking order.
3. The Court questioned the CIT's decision to set aside the assessment order without providing findings on the merits of the issues involved. The absence of reasons and failure to address the submissions made by the assessee led to the conclusion that the order was not adequately reasoned.
4. The applicability of Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act for AY 2014-15 was deliberated upon. It was argued that the CIT should have considered the material submitted by the appellant before deeming the assessment order prejudicial to the revenue's interests.
5. The Court examined whether the Principal Commissioner properly assessed the completion of the assessment without conducting necessary inquiries. It was highlighted that the assessing officer failed to refer certain matters to the Transfer Pricing Officer as mandated, indicating errors in the assessment process.
6. The impact of circular no. 3 of 2016 on the Assessing Officer's discretion under section 92C(3) was analyzed. The Court considered whether the assessment order was erroneous for not referring the case to the Transfer Pricing Officer despite examining relevant documents.
7. Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the matter back to the Principal Commissioner for fresh consideration on specific queries. The appellant was granted the opportunity to submit additional information for a new decision to be made in accordance with the law and with proper reasoning.

---