2022 (12) TMI 1362 - HC - Income Tax

High Court upholds Tribunal's decision on IT Act section 263 order quashing PCIT's assessment.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT 2 Versus SN TRADELINK PVT LTD

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to quash the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ... Revision u/s 263 by CIT - ITAT held that the Ld. PCIT has no jurisdiction u/s 263 - As per CIT AO failed to make inquires or verification which should have been made on account of reduction in liabilities and no inquiries or verification on the disallowance of TCS amount - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that in view of findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal as referred to here-in-above, and in view of settled legal position with respect to invoking jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, 1961, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal so as to give rise to any question of law much-less any substantial question of law as proposed or otherwise. Issues:1. Appeal filed by Revenue challenging ITAT's judgment for the assessment year 2013-2014 under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Questions of law proposed by Revenue regarding jurisdiction of PCIT under section 263 of the Act.3. Discrepancies in liabilities and TCS amount claimed by the assessee.4. PCIT's issuance of show cause notice under section 263 of the Act.5. PCIT's decision to set aside the assessment order and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer.6. Tribunal's decision to quash and set aside the order passed by PCIT under section 263 of the Act.Analysis:1. The appellant, engaged in trading, filed a return of income for 2013-2014, assessed at Rs.6,25,50,590 by the AO. PCIT observed discrepancies in liabilities and TCS amount claimed by the assessee. The difference in opening liability balance and disallowance of TCS amount led to a show cause notice under section 263 of the Act.2. The assessee explained that the liability difference was due to regrouping and recasting, and TCS amount was accounted for separately. However, PCIT found the explanations lacking in detail and ordered a de novo assessment by the AO, citing the failure to make proper inquiries.3. The Tribunal reviewed the case and found that the AO had made necessary inquiries and verifications regarding the liabilities and TCS issues. The Tribunal noted that the AO's acceptance of the explanations provided by the assessee was reasonable and not indicative of an erroneous assessment.4. The Tribunal emphasized that the PCIT did not conduct any additional inquiries or suggest specific areas for verification before setting aside the assessment order. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the conditions for invoking jurisdiction under section 263 were not met, leading to the quashing of the PCIT's order.5. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in allowing the appeal, contending that the PCIT's exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was justified. However, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that there was no legal flaw in the Tribunal's ruling based on factual findings and established legal principles.6. Ultimately, the Tax Appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision to quash the PCIT's order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.