Revisional authority correctly set aside deficient scrutiny assessment under section 263 for inadequate verification procedures

The HC upheld the revisional authority's order u/s 263 setting aside the AO's scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3). The court found the original assessment order deficient as it failed to detail what documents were sought from the assessee, what was submitted, and whether proper verification was conducted before confirming the returned income. The revisional authority correctly identified unexamined issues including Rs. 14.84 crores increase in share premium and unverified cash deposits during demonetization, which caused prejudice to revenue and justified invoking revisional powers.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of the assessment order passed by the assessing authority under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Jurisdiction of the revisional authority under Section 263 of the Act to revise the assessment order.
3. Appeal against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The assessing authority passed a scrutiny assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, which the appellant found to be cryptic and lacking detailed examination. The order merely confirmed the income as admitted in the return without specifying the inputs, documents sought, or verification process. The appellant contended that crucial issues were not addressed in the assessment order, leading to dissatisfaction with the assessing officer's decision (para 2, 9).

2. The revisional authority, Commissioner of Income Tax, invoked Section 263 of the Act after identifying discrepancies in the assessment, including unaccounted cash deposits, significant increase in share premium, and lack of verification of sources for these transactions. The revisional authority set aside the assessment order and directed a detailed inquiry by the assessing officer. The appellant challenged the revisional order, questioning the jurisdiction of the revisional authority to revise an already scrutinized assessment order (para 3, 4, 10).

3. The appellant appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the revisional order. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's arguments and affirmed the revisional authority's decision. Subsequently, the appellant filed a Tax Case Appeal against the Tribunal's order, seeking a review of the decision (para 5).

4. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel raised the issue of jurisdiction based on a previous case, emphasizing the necessity to consider whether the revisional authority could intervene in an assessment already scrutinized by the assessing officer. However, the Court found the appellant's arguments unconvincing, noting the lack of detailed examination in the original assessment order and the significant discrepancies highlighted by the revisional authority. The Court upheld the revisional order and the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal (para 6-12).

---