PCIT's section 263 revision order set aside as AO conducted proper loan inquiry with documentary evidence

ITAT Delhi set aside PCIT's revision order under section 263 regarding a loan inquiry. The PCIT erroneously claimed AO made no inquiry into a Rs. 1 crore loan from a financial services company. However, AO had raised specific queries and assessee provided documentary evidence. ITAT held that section 263 powers require twin conditions: assessment order must be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Since AO conducted proper inquiry and took a legally permissible view, PCIT's jurisdiction assumption was invalid. Assessee's appeal was allowed and AO's original order restored.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Determination of whether the assessment order dated 08.06.2017 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The primary grievance of the assessee was that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The PCIT issued a show-cause notice alleging that the assessment order dated 08.06.2017, framed under Section 143(3) of the Act, was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction was based on the recommendation of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT), Hisar Range. The Tribunal noted that the PCIT did not apply his mind independently but relied on the JCIT's recommendation, which was based on erroneous facts. The Tribunal emphasized that the PCIT must independently call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act, as per Section 263.

2. Determination of Whether the Assessment Order was Erroneous and Prejudicial to the Interest of the Revenue:
The Tribunal examined whether the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The PCIT alleged that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not make any enquiry regarding a loan of Rs. 1 crore taken from M/s Vardhman Financial Services Pvt Ltd. However, the Tribunal found that the AO had indeed raised specific queries and the assessee had provided detailed replies along with supporting documentary evidence, including confirmation of accounts, bank statements, and income tax returns of M/s Vardhman Financial Services Pvt Ltd. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the AO had made a complete enquiry during the original assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., 243 ITR 83, which laid down that for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263, the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Tribunal also cited the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108, which stated that an order cannot be termed erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. The Tribunal reiterated that where the AO has taken one of the possible views, no action to exercise powers of revision can arise.

The Tribunal further referred to the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat's decision in CIT vs. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd., 309 ITR 67, which observed that an assessment order need not incorporate detailed reasons for upholding the assessee's claim. The Tribunal also cited the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto, 332 ITR 167, which distinguished between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry", stating that the latter does not justify the exercise of revisionary powers under Section 263.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order dated 08.06.2017 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The AO had conducted a thorough enquiry and the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the PCIT and restored the original assessment order. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Pronouncement:
The order was pronounced in the open court on 31.01.2024.

---