CIT revision order quashed for violating natural justice principles in bad debt and fixed assets case under section 263

ITAT Surat allowed the assessee's appeal against CIT's revision order u/s 263. The tribunal held that AO's decision to allow bad debt deduction was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue, following SC precedent in TRF Ltd that post-1989, actual irrecoverability need not be established if debt is written off in books. Regarding fixed assets additions, ITAT found CIT violated natural justice principles by not considering assessee's reply to notice, citing SC judgment in Amitabh Bachchan case. The revisional order was quashed for non-compliance with mandatory hearing provisions under section 263.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdictional conditions for invoking Section 263.
2. Examination of bad debts/provision for bad debts.
3. Verification of additions to fixed assets.

Summary:

1. Jurisdictional Conditions for Invoking Section 263:
The assessee challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Ld. PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that the jurisdictional conditions of "erroneous" and "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" were not satisfied. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. PCIT must demonstrate how the assessment order was erroneous and caused a loss to the revenue.

2. Examination of Bad Debts/Provision for Bad Debts:
The Ld. PCIT questioned the allowance of bad debts amounting to Rs. 2,31,18,532/- without proper verification by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal observed that the AO had issued a notice to the assessee and received a reply, thus examining the issue. The Tribunal cited CBDT Circular No. 12 of 2016 and the Supreme Court judgment in the case of TRF Ltd., which stated that it is sufficient for the assessee to write off bad debts in the books of accounts. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the AO's decision to allow the bad debts was a possible view and not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

3. Verification of Additions to Fixed Assets:
The Ld. PCIT raised an issue regarding discrepancies in the additions to fixed assets reported in the annual report and the Income Tax Return (ITR). The Ld. PCIT issued a notice to the assessee on 29.03.2023, and the assessee replied on 30.03.2023. However, the Ld. PCIT did not consider the assessee's reply and passed the order on 31.03.2023. The Tribunal highlighted the violation of the principle of natural justice, as the Ld. PCIT did not provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Amitabh Bachchan, which emphasized the necessity of providing an opportunity of hearing during revision proceedings under Section 263. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the order passed by the Ld. PCIT for not adhering to the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, quashing the order passed by the Ld. PCIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following the principles of natural justice and the necessity for the Ld. PCIT to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing an order. The order was pronounced on 16/10/2023 in the open court.

---