2025 (1) TMI 692 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT quashes revision order under Section 263 for accommodation entries worth INR 14 lakh without proper inquiry

ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the revision order u/s 263. The Pr. CIT had set aside the AO's assessment regarding alleged ... Revision u/s 263 - receipt of accommodation entries - HELD THAT:- The Quasi-judicial function performed by the AO ought not have been set aside by the Ld. Pr. CIT in a mechanical manner without bringing any relevant fact before the assessee. Assessee has categorically denied having received any credits from the two companies which are alleged to be accommodation entries providers. On being asked by the Bench, the assessee also furnished affidavit dated 17.12.2024 by the Tribunal to the effect that the assessee has not received alleged amount of INR 14,00,000/- either from Shri Himashu Verma or his alleged concerns namely, M/s. Broanze Star Techsoft Pvt.Ltd. and M/s. Royal Merage Financial Consultants Pvt.Ltd. In the light of the circumstances narrated on behalf of the assessee and in the wake of averments of the assessee duly recorded in 263 proceedings that no such entries have been received coupled with the affidavit of the assessee, we see no error in the re-assessment order. The order passed under s. 263 of the Act is thus quashed. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was justified in invoking powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to revise the assessment order.Whether the assessment order dated 29.03.2022, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.Whether the reassessment proceedings were valid given the alleged lack of provision of reasons and sanction from the Appropriate Authority under Section 151 of the Act.Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the reassessment proceedings.Whether the alleged transactions with certain entities were valid grounds for reassessment.Whether the jurisdictional validity of the assessment order can be challenged at any stage of the proceedings.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Invocation of Section 263 by the PCITRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 263 of the Income Tax Act allows the PCIT to revise an assessment order if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The landmark case of GKN Drive Shaft India Ltd. Vs ITO and Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. Vs ACIT provide guidance on procedural fairness in reassessment.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the PCIT had valid grounds to invoke Section 263, focusing on whether the original assessment order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the PCIT's decision was based on alleged errors in the reassessment process, particularly the exclusion of INR 14,00,000/- as bogus accommodation entries without proper inquiry.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted sufficient inquiries during the reassessment and had rightly dropped the allegations regarding the INR 14,00,000/- entries. Thus, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was unwarranted.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the PCIT's argument that the AO failed to conduct a proper inquiry but found that the AO's actions were justified based on the evidence.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was invalid, as the original assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.Issue 2: Validity of Reassessment ProceedingsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 147 of the Act allows for reassessment if income has escaped assessment. The procedural requirements include providing reasons for reassessment and obtaining proper sanction.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal evaluated whether the reassessment proceedings complied with legal requirements, particularly the provision of reasons and sanction.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the reasons for reassessment were communicated to the assessee, and the AO had acted within the legal framework.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal determined that the reassessment proceedings were valid, as the AO had followed due process.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that the reassessment was invalid due to procedural lapses, but the Tribunal found these arguments unsubstantiated.Conclusions: The reassessment proceedings were upheld as valid.Issue 3: Principles of Natural JusticeRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principles of natural justice require that parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal assessed whether the AO had violated these principles by not providing necessary information to the assessee.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the AO had provided the assessee with sufficient opportunity to respond to the allegations.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal concluded that the principles of natural justice were not violated in the reassessment process.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's claim of a violation was not supported by evidence.Conclusions: The Tribunal found no violation of natural justice principles.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'The order passed under s. 263 of the Act is thus quashed.'Core Principles Established: The Tribunal established that for Section 263 to be invoked, the original assessment must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Additionally, procedural fairness must be maintained in reassessment proceedings.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the PCIT's order under Section 263 and upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings.