PCIT's Section 263 revision quashed for voluntary income surrender during survey lacking proper inquiry justification

ITAT Rajkot quashed PCIT's revision order u/s 263 regarding income surrendered during survey u/s 133A. Assessee, a medical practitioner, voluntarily surrendered Rs. 15 lakhs as unaccounted professional receipts during survey, which AO accepted as business income taxed at normal rates. PCIT held AO's acceptance erroneous for lack of inquiry. ITAT found PCIT's conclusion baseless as assessee made voluntary surrender without any incriminating material found during survey. AO had conducted due inquiry and properly accepted surrender as professional receipts per judicial pronouncements. PCIT failed to examine survey records or demonstrate specific error in AO's assessment. Revision order held without valid jurisdiction and unsustainable.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Jurisdiction and validity of the order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Applicability of section 115BBE on the surrendered income.
3. Adequacy of inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the nature of the surrendered income.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Validity of the Order Passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The appellant challenged the jurisdiction and validity of the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under section 263, which set aside the assessment framed under section 143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal held that the order passed under section 263 was not sustainable. It was noted that the PCIT did not provide a valid basis for finding an error in the assessment order, as the records revealed that due inquiry was conducted by the AO, who accepted the surrendered income as business income liable to tax at 30%.

2. Applicability of Section 115BBE on the Surrendered Income:
The PCIT contended that the surrendered income of Rs. 15 lakhs during the survey should have been treated as unexplained income under section 68 and taxed at a higher rate of 60% as prescribed under section 115BBE. The Tribunal found that the AO had made specific inquiries regarding the nature of the surrendered income and accepted it as professional receipts. The Tribunal referenced judicial pronouncements indicating that where the surrendered income is related to business or professional receipts and no other identifiable assets or expenditure are found, section 115BBE could not be invoked. Therefore, the PCIT's view of invoking section 263 on this aspect was not justified.

3. Adequacy of Inquiry Conducted by the AO Regarding the Nature of the Surrendered Income:
The PCIT argued that the AO had not conducted any inquiries or applied his mind regarding the applicability of sections 69A and 115BBE. However, the Tribunal noted that the AO had issued a specific query during assessment proceedings, asking the assessee about the declaration of unaccounted receipts and why it should not be taxed under section 69 read with section 115BBE. The assessee provided a detailed response, explaining that the surrendered amount was unaccounted professional receipts, which was accepted by the officials during the survey. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted due inquiry and considered the statement recorded during the survey, which indicated that the surrendered income was professional receipts. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's acceptance of the surrendered income as business income was a plausible view and in accordance with law.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the PCIT under section 263 was without valid jurisdiction and not sustainable in law. The AO had conducted adequate inquiries and taken a plausible view in accepting the surrendered income as professional receipts. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order of the PCIT was set aside.

---