2023 (11) TMI 693 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT upholds section 263 revision power over search assessments but quashes revision where AO already examined expenses

ITAT Chennai dismissed assessee's appeal challenging PCIT's revision order u/s 263. The tribunal held that section 263 contains no exclusion for search ... Revision u/s 263 - PCIT held that the assessment framed by the AO u/s. 153C r.w.s. 153A is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue - argument of the assessee that in the case of search assessments u/s. 153A or 153C of the Act, no revision proceedings u/s. 263 - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that in the provisions of section 263 of the Act, there is no exclusion or exception craved out. The provision of section 263 of the Act is very clear that any order passed by the AO if it is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, the PCIT, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary, can pass a revision order. Hence, this objection to the revision order is dismissed as such. Sale amount disbursed remained untaxed - On merits of the case, we noted from the assessment order that the AO in his assessment order passed u/s. 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 31.03.2015 made a passing reference to the filing of details as “filed the details called for” and this was with the prior approval of Joint Commissioner of Income- Tax, Central Range – 3, Chennai as required u/s. 153D of the Act. We noted that the above seized document found from the premises of Indo Asia Finance Ltd., which contains the details of agreement for sale dated 13.03.2006 of Shri Jayanthilal Challani, one of the Directors of Saravana Foundations Ltd., now known as Saravana Global Holdings Ltd., i.e., assessee-company, who gave a power of attorney to Shri T. Krishnarajan to purchase certain lands from Shri B. Govindaraj and others. The seized documents are never examined by the AO as is apparent from the assessment order and to counter the same, the assessee has not filed any evidence before us. Even otherwise, there is no evidence that the transaction has been carried out by Shri Jayanthilal on his own and not behalf of the assessee company. This has to be established. Hence, we find no infirmity in the revision and hence, the same is confirmed. Accordingly, this appeal of assessee is dismissed. Assessment framed by the AO u/s. 143(3) treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for the reason that the AO framed assessment without verifying the details and expenses as the assessee failed to file details of expenses despite a query was raised - We noted that the AO while framing assessment has gone into the details filed by the assessee and noted that the assessee’s gross turnover is at Rs. 38.19 crores whereas net loss in the profit and loss account declared is Rs. 35.11 crores. The AO also examined the expenses incurred by the assessee and made disallowance of the same in the absence of details We noted that the AO himself recorded while issuing questionnaire along with notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 14.11.2016 and asked certain details including the details of expenses incurred and claimed in the profit & loss account. We noted that once the AO has raised a query and gone into the details, the AO has formed one of the possible views and once there is one of the possible views, the revision is not possible. Accordingly, the revision order passed by PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act is quashed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Issues Involved:1. Revision of orders prejudicial and erroneous to revenue.2. Inadequate enquiry by the Assessing Officer (AO).ITA No. 1383/CHNY/2017:Revision of Orders Prejudicial and Erroneous to Revenue:The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) revised the assessment framed by the AO under section 153C read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that the AO did not consider certain seized documents, which indicated a transaction amounting to Rs. 19,12,500/- that remained untaxed. The PCIT deemed the assessment order dated 31.03.2015 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's revision, dismissing the assessee's appeal by confirming that section 263 of the Act allows for revision if the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, without any exclusion for assessments under sections 153A or 153C.Inadequate Enquiry:The Tribunal noted that the AO made a passing reference to the details filed by the assessee without examining the seized documents, which contained details of a sale agreement executed by a director of the assessee-company. The Tribunal found no evidence that the transaction was carried out by the director personally and not on behalf of the company. Hence, the Tribunal confirmed the PCIT's revision order, directing the AO to re-decide the issue after necessary enquiries and verification.ITA No. 1384/CHNY/2017:Revision of Orders Prejudicial and Erroneous to Revenue:The PCIT revised the assessment order for the assessment year 2013-14, stating that the AO framed the assessment without verifying the details of expenses claimed by the assessee. The PCIT directed the AO to re-do the assessment after conducting necessary enquiries and verification. The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's revision order, noting that the AO had examined the details and disallowed 1% of the total expenses, indicating that the AO had applied his mind and formed a possible view.Inadequate Enquiry:The Tribunal observed that the AO had raised queries and examined the details of expenses incurred by the assessee, making a disallowance in the absence of details. Since the AO had formed one of the possible views, the Tribunal held that the revision by the PCIT was not justified. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal.Conclusion:In ITA No. 1383/CHNY/2017, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the PCIT's revision order. In ITA No. 1384/CHNY/2017, the appeal was allowed, quashing the PCIT's revision order.