Only Principal Chief Commissioner or Commissioner with transfer pricing jurisdiction can revise TPO orders under Section 263

ITAT Chennai held that only Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, or Commissioner having jurisdiction over transfer pricing matters can exercise revisionary powers under Section 263 against Transfer Pricing Officer orders, effective from April 1, 2022. The tribunal quashed the revision order passed by PCIT Madurai-1, ruling it was passed without valid jurisdiction as the PCIT lacked authority over the TPO. The assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B was found to have no deficiencies warranting revision, making the revisionary action unjustified and void ab initio.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdictional Authority of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263.
2. Validity of Revisionary Proceedings under Section 263.
3. Evaluation of Transfer Pricing Order and Assessment Order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdictional Authority of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263:

The key issue in this case was whether the PCIT, Madurai-1, had the jurisdiction to pass a revisionary order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the PCIT lacked jurisdiction because the order involved was related to transfer pricing, which should fall under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing), Chennai. The assessee relied on the CBDT notification dated 03.11.2014, which outlined the hierarchical structure and command chain for transfer pricing matters. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the Finance Act 2022 clarified that only the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner with jurisdiction over transfer pricing matters could invoke Section 263 with respect to Transfer Pricing Officers (TPOs). Therefore, the PCIT, Madurai-1, did not have the lawful jurisdiction to pass the order, rendering it void ab initio.

2. Validity of Revisionary Proceedings under Section 263:

The assessee challenged the revisionary proceedings initiated by the PCIT, arguing that the proceedings were without jurisdiction and lacked authority. The Tribunal emphasized that jurisdiction is a sine qua non for any order passed by any authority. The law mandates that only specific authorities have the power to revise orders under Section 263. Since the PCIT, Madurai-1, did not possess the lawful jurisdiction over the TPO's order, the revisionary proceedings were deemed invalid and void from the outset.

3. Evaluation of Transfer Pricing Order and Assessment Order:

The Tribunal examined whether the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The PCIT had argued that the order was erroneous due to deficiencies in the TPO's report. However, the Tribunal found no deficiencies in the assessment order that would classify it as erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order did not suffer from any deficiencies that would justify the exercise of revisionary powers. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order under Section 263, as it was passed without valid jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the order passed by the PCIT, Madurai-1, under Section 263 was without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Therefore, the other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee became academic and were not adjudicated separately.

---