ITAT allows appeal challenging section 263, citing Covid-19, emphasizing assessing officer's adequacy.

The ITAT allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, finding no error in the AO's order to justify the initiation of section 263 proceedings by the Principal CIT. The time-barred appeal was condoned due to the Covid-19 period. The disallowance of director's remuneration and the invocation of section 263 were challenged, with the ITAT emphasizing that the Principal CIT cannot substitute judgment unless the decision is wholly erroneous. The ITAT held that the assessing officer's inquiry was adequate, leading to the conclusion that the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT Vadodara-3, in proceeding u/s. 263 for the assessment year 2016-17.

Details of the judgment:

Issue 1: Time-barred appeal
The appeal of the assessee was time-barred by 30 days, but the delay was condoned due to falling within the Covid-19 period.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Director's remuneration
During assessment, the AO disallowed Rs. 19 lakhs under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act for excessive remuneration paid to one director. The Principal CIT initiated proceedings under section 263 for another director's remuneration, alleging it was also excessive.

Issue 3: Invocation of section 263
The assessee contended that the AO had thoroughly examined remunerations paid to related parties under section 40A(2)(b) during assessment. The Principal CIT's attempt to supplant the AO's view in the 263 proceedings was challenged.

Issue 4: Adequacy of inquiry
The Principal CIT set aside the assessment order due to inconsistency in disallowances made for directors' remuneration. The assessing officer had made inquiries and considered submissions by the assessee, leading to a well-informed decision.

Issue 5: Legal interpretation
The ITAT held that the Principal CIT cannot substitute judgment for that of the Assessing Officer unless the decision is wholly erroneous. Various judicial precedents were cited to emphasize that the Principal CIT's different opinion does not justify setting aside an assessment order.

Conclusion:
The ITAT allowed the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, finding no error in the AO's order to warrant the initiation of section 263 proceedings by the Principal CIT. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

---