2024 (3) TMI 1153 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT upholds dividend income exemption after PCIT's failed Section 263 revision attempt

Sampark Management Consultancy LLP Versus Pr. CIT, Noida, Noida.

Sampark Management Consultancy LLP Versus Pr. CIT, Noida, Noida. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of revisional order u/s 263 of the Act.2. Examination of assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act.3. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.4. Admission of additional ground of appeal.Summary of Judgment:Issue 1: Validity of Revisional Order u/s 263 of the ActThe assessee challenged the revisional order dated 27.03.2022 passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Noida u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that for invoking u/s 263, the order must be both 'erroneous' and 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.' The PCIT's direction to the Assessing Officer (AO) to conduct specific inquiries was found to be unwarranted and superfluous as the AO had already examined the issues during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 was not sustainable and set aside the revisional order, restoring the AO's order.Issue 2: Examination of Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the ActThe assessment order dated 07.12.2019 u/s 143(3) was scrutinized. The AO had issued multiple notices u/s 142(1) and examined the details and documentary evidence provided by the assessee. The AO concluded that there was no adverse inference on the issues of reduction in profit, exemption of dividend income, increase in unsecured loans, and large refund claimed. The Tribunal found that the AO made adequate inquiries and verifications, and thus, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.Issue 3: Condonation of Delay in Filing the AppealThe appeal was filed late by 27 days. The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering that the appeal was e-filed in time, and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits.Issue 4: Admission of Additional Ground of AppealThe assessee moved an application for the admission of an additional ground of appeal regarding the jurisdiction of the assessment order dated 07.03.2019 u/s 143(3), claiming no notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the jurisdictional AO. However, this additional ground was not pressed by the assessee.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, set aside the revisional order u/s 263, and restored the AO's assessment order. The judgment emphasized the necessity of both conditions (erroneous and prejudicial) for invoking u/s 263 and recognized the AO's due diligence in the assessment process.