ITAT quashes CIT revision order under section 263 for money-lending business assessment dispute

The ITAT Chennai quashed the CIT's revision order under section 263. The CIT argued that the AO failed to properly examine incriminating search material regarding the assessee's money-lending business and outstanding debtors of Rs. 35 crores. However, the ITAT found that the AO had adequately inquired into the investment sources during assessment proceedings. The assessee satisfactorily explained that 98% of funds in circulation represented borrowed funds, and the outstanding debtors originated from income generated over time from money-lending activities. The ITAT held that the AO's view was plausible and not erroneous, citing established precedents that where two views are possible, the CIT cannot substitute the AO's reasonable conclusion with his own opinion.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT).
2. Alleged erroneous and prejudicial assessment order by the Assessing Officer (AO).
3. Consideration of incriminating materials and debtor balances in the assessment.
4. Validity of the Pr. CIT's revisionary order in light of judicial precedents.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Invocation of Revisionary Jurisdiction under Section 263:
The assessee challenged the invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 by the Pr. CIT, arguing that the assessment order dated 29-09-2021 was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Pr. CIT issued a show-cause notice alleging that the AO failed to consider incriminating search material indicating the assessee's money-lending business with an outstanding debtor balance of Rs. 34.61 Crores, which was not properly verified or assessed by the AO. The Pr. CIT contended that this omission rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, warranting revision under Section 263.

2. Alleged Erroneous and Prejudicial Assessment Order:
The assessee argued that the AO had duly considered all facts and seized materials during the assessment proceedings. The AO had added cash found during the search to the assessee's income, attributing it to unaccounted finance mediation business. The assessee contended that the AO's assessment was not prejudicial to the revenue's interests, as the income from the unaccounted business was already accounted for as unexplained money. The Pr. CIT's assertion that the AO's assessment lacked application of mind was disputed by the assessee, who claimed that the AO had taken one of the possible views permissible in law.

3. Consideration of Incriminating Materials and Debtor Balances:
The Pr. CIT noted that the AO failed to consider the incriminating material evidencing the assessee's money-lending business and the outstanding debtor balance of Rs. 34.61 Crores. The Pr. CIT argued that the AO did not make necessary inquiries or verification regarding the sources of investment in the money-lending business. The assessee defended that the debtor balance was already considered in the assessment of the firm M/s. Sri Ram Studio, and the cash addition was due to unaccounted commission income. The Pr. CIT rejected this defense, stating that the debtor balance issue was not part of the assessee's appeal and that the AO's failure to assess it in the assessee's hands indicated non-application of mind.

4. Validity of Pr. CIT's Revisionary Order in Light of Judicial Precedents:
The tribunal evaluated whether the Pr. CIT's revisionary order was justified. It was noted that the AO had issued notices and considered explanations regarding the seized documents and outstanding debtor balances during the assessment proceedings. The assessee had explained that the debtor balance was primarily borrowed funds, and the AO had accepted this explanation. The tribunal referred to judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that an order is not erroneous or prejudicial if the AO adopts one of the permissible views in law. The tribunal found that the AO's view was plausible and not opposed to the facts on record. Consequently, the Pr. CIT could not substitute the AO's opinion with his own without proving it was perverse.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the AO had made necessary inquiries and the Pr. CIT's invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. The tribunal allowed the appeal, restoring the assessment order framed by the AO. The tribunal emphasized that the AO's view was a plausible one, and the Pr. CIT's revisionary order could not be upheld under the given circumstances.

---