2025 (3) TMI 1169 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal's Dismissal Overturned: Section 263 Allows Fresh Appeal Consideration Without Separate Challenge; Assessee's Appeal Restored.

Malabar Institute Of Medical Sciences Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Kozhikode.

The Court held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable, emphasizing that an open remand under Section 263 of the Income Tax ... Validity of order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals u/s 263 - closed remand or open remand - correctness of findings that the assessee ought to have questioned the order u/s 263 in a separate proceedings - HELD THAT:- We find from the records that the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals under Section 263 of the IT Act cannot be under any circumstances construed as a closed remand. While exercising the suo moto power of revision under Section 263 of the IT Act, the Commissioner had found that the order of assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and, therefore, set aside the order of assessment and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for a fresh consideration on merits. That be so, it is beyond one’s comprehension as to how the tribunal could hold that the order of remand under Section 263 of the IT Act passed by the Commissioner of Appeals is a closed remand. Thus, we are of the view that the assessee need not have questioned the order under Section 263 in a separate proceeding. In as much as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had decided the appeal preferred by the assessee against the revised assessment order on merits, it was incumbent upon the tribunal to have decided the appeal on merits rather than finding that the assessee ought to have questioned the order under Section 263 in a separate proceedings. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the tribunal erred egregiously in dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee as ‘not maintainable’. Therefore, we are of the view that the order of the tribunal requires to be interfered with - appeal will stand restored to the files for fresh consideration. Decided in favour of assessee. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable on the grounds that the appellant did not challenge the order of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax ActRs.2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the observations in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 regarding the calculation of income under Section 115JB are binding on the Assessing OfficerRs.3) Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) correctly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer concerning the computation of book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax ActRs.4) Whether the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were correct in disregarding the method adopted by the appellant for reckoning the lower of loss or depreciation, given the absence of specific guidelines in Section 115JBRs.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1) Dismissal of the Appeal as Not Maintainable- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The central legal question revolves around the interpretation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, which empowers the Commissioner of Income Tax to revise orders that are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable was based on the appellant's failure to challenge the Commissioner's order under Section 263.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 was not a closed remand but an open one, allowing for fresh consideration on merits by the assessing authority. The Court reasoned that the Tribunal's view that the order under Section 263 needed to be challenged separately was incorrect.- Application of Law to Facts: The Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable since the order under Section 263 was open for further proceedings, and the appellant had the right to appeal the revised assessment order on its merits.- Conclusions: The Court held that the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal was erroneous, and the appeal should be considered on its merits.2) Binding Nature of the Commissioner's Observations under Section 263- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The issue concerns whether the observations made by the Commissioner in the order under Section 263 are binding on the Assessing Officer during the reassessment process.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court did not explicitly address this issue in detail, as it focused on the maintainability of the appeal and the nature of the remand order.- Conclusions: The Court's decision to remand the case back to the Tribunal for consideration on merits implies that the Tribunal should address the binding nature of the Commissioner's observations in its fresh consideration.3) Confirmation of the Order of the Assessing Officer by the CIT(A)- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The focus here is on the correctness of the computation of book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court did not delve into the specifics of this issue, as the primary concern was the procedural aspect of the appeal's maintainability.- Conclusions: The Court's directive to the Tribunal to consider the appeal on merits suggests that this issue should be re-evaluated by the Tribunal.4) Disregard of the Method Adopted by the Appellant- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The issue pertains to the methodology for calculating the lower of loss or depreciation in the absence of specific guidelines under Section 115JB.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: Similar to the above issues, the Court did not provide a detailed analysis, as its focus was on the procedural error made by the Tribunal.- Conclusions: The Tribunal is expected to address this issue during its fresh consideration of the appeal.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- The Court held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. The Court stated, 'We are of the considered view that the tribunal erred egregiously in dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee as 'not maintainable'.'- The core principle established is that an open remand under Section 263 does not necessitate a separate challenge before the appeal on the revised assessment order can be considered on its merits.- The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and restored the appeal for fresh consideration, directing the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law, thus allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee and against the revenue.