2025 (2) TMI 236 - AT - Income Tax

Principal Commissioner cannot delegate Section 263 revision powers to Assessing Officer without recording specific erroneous findings

M/s. Aaryan Rice Industries LLP Versus The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G)

M/s. Aaryan Rice Industries LLP Versus The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G) - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment were:Whether the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, setting aside the assessment framed under Section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.Whether the Pr. CIT provided adequate opportunity to the appellant before passing the revision order.Whether the Pr. CIT was justified in setting aside the assessment order for fresh adjudication without conducting a minimal inquiry to establish that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Legality of the Pr. CIT's Order under Section 263Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 263 of the Income-tax Act empowers the Pr. CIT to revise an assessment order if it is deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Pr. CIT must make or cause to be made such inquiry as deemed necessary before passing the order. The explanation to Section 263 clarifies that an order is erroneous if it is passed without making necessary inquiries or verifications.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the Pr. CIT did not record any finding or reason to substantiate that the assessment order was erroneous. The Pr. CIT set aside the assessment order without conducting any minimal inquiry or verification, which is a prerequisite for exercising jurisdiction under Section 263.Key evidence and findings: The assessee provided detailed documentation, including a list of TDS payments, names of deductees, PAN numbers, and a screenshot from the Traces site showing no outstanding demand. Despite this, the Pr. CIT did not verify these documents and instead set aside the assessment order for further verification by the Assessing Officer (A.O).Application of law to facts: The Tribunal emphasized that the Pr. CIT must first form an opinion that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue before setting it aside. The Pr. CIT failed to do so, thereby overstepping the jurisdiction under Section 263.Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal noted that the Pr. CIT relied on 'Explanation-2' of Section 263, which deems an order erroneous if passed without necessary inquiries. However, the Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT must record an observation based on the evidence submitted by the assessee, which was not done in this case.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the Pr. CIT's order was premature and not in accordance with the mandate of Section 263, as it did not establish that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.2. Adequacy of Opportunity Provided to the AppellantRelevant legal framework and precedents: The principles of natural justice require that an assessee be given a fair opportunity to present their case before any adverse order is passed.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail, as the primary focus was on the procedural lapse by the Pr. CIT in exercising jurisdiction under Section 263.Key evidence and findings: The assessee claimed that adequate opportunity was not provided, but the Tribunal's decision primarily hinged on the procedural error by the Pr. CIT.Conclusions: The Tribunal allowed the appeal based on the procedural lapse without delving deeply into whether adequate opportunity was provided.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that 'the Pr. CIT by not recording any observation that there was any short deduction/short collection of tax at source by the assessee...had, thus without carrying out the minimal inquiry and giving any specific reason for concluding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, traversed beyond the jurisdiction that was vested with him u/s. 263 of the Act.'Core principles established: The Pr. CIT must conduct a minimal inquiry and provide specific reasons for concluding that an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue before setting it aside under Section 263.Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal set aside the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 and restored the original assessment order, concluding that the Pr. CIT did not fulfill the prerequisites for revising the assessment.