2025 (4) TMI 599 - AT - Income Tax

PCIT cannot use section 263 to legalize invalid section 153C assessment without proper satisfaction recording

M/s. MSN Institute of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Prathima Resorts & Restaurants Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Prathima Eggset Private Limited., M/s. Spark Vidyut Pvt. Ltd. Versus The PCIT- (Central), Hyderabad.

ITAT Hyderabad quashed the PCIT's revision order under section 263, holding that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C was invalid due to ... Revision u/s 263 - assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C by the AO is vitiated in the absence of recording of any valid satisfaction for the instant assessment year - as per CIT assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, inasmuch as, the AO has failed to take into account the relevant seized material found during the course of search in the case of M/s. MSN Group of companies on 24.02.2021 which clearly shows on-money payment for purchase of land by the appellant and other group companies HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO u/sec.153C of the Act is not in accordance with law as provided u/sec.153C of the Act and this fact is further strengthened by the decision of Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017 (8) TMI 1298 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been clearly held that unless the Assessing Officer records satisfaction with reference to the incriminating material qua each assessment year, the initiation of proceedings u/sec.153C and consequent assessment proceedings is null and void ab initio. Since the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer is not a valid satisfaction, in our considered view, any assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the said “invalid satisfaction note” also void ab initio and liable to be quashed. Therefore, once the assessment order considered to be illegal assessment order, in our considered view, the assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT to revise the assessment order in terms of sec.263 is also illegal and void ab initio and liable to be quashed because an illegal order cannot be legalised by exercising revisionary power u/sec.263 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the order passed by the PCIT u/sec.263 of the Act is not sustainable in law. Thus, we quash the order passed by the PCIT u/sec.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Decided in favour of assessee. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in the judgment were:1. Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) had the jurisdiction to revise assessment orders passed under Section 153C with prior approval from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) under Section 153D, using the revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Whether the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C by the Assessing Officer was valid, given the alleged absence of a valid satisfaction note correlating seized material with the determination of total income for the assessment years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019.3. Whether the assessment orders passed under Section 153C for the assessment years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 were void ab initio and could not be subjected to revision under Section 263.4. Whether the PCIT could rely on non-incriminating seized material to revise an order under Section 153C.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Jurisdiction of PCIT under Section 263The legal framework for revision under Section 263 requires that the order in question be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Tribunal considered whether the PCIT could revise an order passed with JCIT's approval under Section 153D. The Tribunal found that the statute did not explicitly restrict the PCIT from revising such orders. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the revision powers could not be exercised if the original order was void ab initio.2. Validity of Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 153CThe Tribunal examined whether the Assessing Officer had a valid satisfaction note correlating the seized material with the total income for the relevant assessment years. It was noted that the satisfaction note did not sufficiently co-relate the seized material to the assessment years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. The Tribunal relied on precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society, to conclude that the absence of a valid satisfaction note rendered the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C invalid.3. Void ab initio Assessment OrdersThe Tribunal concluded that the assessment orders for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 were void ab initio due to the lack of a valid jurisdictional foundation. The principle 'Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus' was applied, indicating that an invalid foundation invalidates the entire structure. Consequently, such orders could not be revised under Section 263.4. Reliance on Non-Incriminating MaterialThe Tribunal found that the PCIT had relied on non-incriminating material, specifically page 99 of Annexure-A/SS-5/UBK/02, which only detailed RTGS payments and did not contain incriminating evidence of cash payments. The Tribunal held that reliance on such non-incriminating material for revision was misplaced and legally unsustainable.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal held that the assessment orders for the years in question were void ab initio due to the lack of a valid satisfaction note, rendering them non-est in the eyes of the law. Consequently, these orders could not be revised under Section 263. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of a valid satisfaction note correlating seized material with the relevant assessment years as a jurisdictional prerequisite for initiating proceedings under Section 153C.The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT's reliance on non-incriminating material was legally unsustainable and that the revision orders under Section 263 were void. The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's orders and allowed the appeals for the assessment years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019.In summary, the Tribunal's decision focused on the invalidity of the original assessment orders due to jurisdictional defects and the improper reliance on non-incriminating material for revision, leading to the quashing of the PCIT's orders under Section 263.