2025 (5) TMI 327 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT upholds Principal CIT's revision order under section 263 setting aside reassessment directing undisclosed income treatment

Shri Amin Ibrahim Jaka, Prop. M/s. I.B. Enterprise. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Bhavnagar And Shri Amin Ibrahim Jaka, Prop. M/s. I.B. Enterprise Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad

Shri Amin Ibrahim Jaka, Prop. M/s. I.B. Enterprise. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Bhavnagar And Shri Amin Ibrahim Jaka, Prop. ... 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in these appeals are:Whether the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, revising the reassessment order under section 143(3) was justified, specifically whether the original assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.Whether the Assessing Officer erred in not properly examining the nature and taxability of the sum of Rs. 3.95 crores received by the assessee from M/s. Payal Properties Pvt. Ltd. (PPPL), which was claimed as an advance by the assessee but considered income by the Principal CIT.Whether the Principal CIT was legally empowered under section 263 to enhance the assessment suo moto by revising the order and directing a fresh assessment.Whether the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on the assessee in respect of the disputed transaction was justified.Whether the notice issued under section 148 and the consequent reassessment order were legally sustainable, particularly in light of the limitation period and jurisdictional requirements.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Validity of the Revision Order under Section 263Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 263 empowers the Principal Commissioner to call for and examine records of any proceeding and revise an order if it is found erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The section explicitly allows enhancement or modification of assessment orders. The Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions cited include T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. and Karamchand Thapar, which establish that income arising from business activity, if undisclosed, can be taxed accordingly.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal upheld the Principal CIT's view that the reassessment order dated 18.03.2013 was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The Principal CIT found that the Assessing Officer failed to properly scrutinize the transaction involving Rs. 3.95 crores, which was claimed as an advance but was in fact income. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not examine the material evidence or call for confirmation from PPPL or HSPL, nor did he provide them an opportunity to be heard. This was a serious lapse given the reopening was based on this disputed amount.Key Evidence and Findings: The Principal CIT examined multiple Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) dated 19.08.2004, 19.11.2004, 16.02.2005, and others, which indicated a structured business involving acquisition and disposal of land, profit-sharing arrangements, and payments made by PPPL and related entities to the assessee's proprietary concern, I.B. Enterprises. Bank records confirmed payments totaling Rs. 3.95 crores, including a Rs. 1 crore payment in November 2004. Letters from PPPL confirmed the amount was consideration for land, not a loan or advance. Arbitration proceedings initiated by PPPL excluded this amount, undermining the assessee's claim that it was still payable.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal agreed with the Principal CIT that the amount could not be treated as a mere advance but was income arising from business activity. The failure of the AO to verify the nature of the transaction from creditors and to consider contradictory evidence rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee contended the amount was an advance from customers, supported primarily by an MOU dated 19.08.2004. However, PPPL's reliance on multiple other MOUs and documents, coupled with the absence of any contractual link from the assessee's side explaining the Rs. 3.95 crores as an advance, weakened this position. The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to produce any MOU linking the amount to a specific deal and the AO's acceptance of the assessee's version without inquiry was a significant omission.Conclusion: The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Principal CIT's revision order under section 263 and upheld the direction to treat the amount as undisclosed income.Issue 2: Power of Principal CIT to Enhance Assessment under Section 263Legal Framework: Section 263(1) explicitly provides that the Principal Commissioner may pass an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or canceling it and directing a fresh assessment if the original order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.Court's Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized the plain language of section 263, confirming that the Principal CIT was empowered to suo moto enhance the assessment. This power includes revising the order when the original assessment is found to be erroneous and prejudicial.Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT acted within his jurisdiction and authority in passing the revision order enhancing the assessment.Issue 3: Validity of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c)Legal Framework: Section 271(1)(c) penalizes concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.Court's Reasoning: Given the Tribunal's affirmation that the amount of Rs. 3.95 crores was rightly treated as undisclosed income, the penalty imposed for concealment was justified. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the penalty order passed by the Principal CIT.Conclusion: The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was upheld.Issue 4: Validity of Notice under Section 148 and Reassessment OrderLegal Framework: Section 148 allows reopening of assessment within prescribed time limits, subject to fulfillment of conditions precedent.Arguments: The assessee contended that the notice under section 148 dated 15.12.2011 and consequential reassessment order dated 18.03.2013 were legally unsustainable and issued without valid jurisdiction, particularly beyond the four-year period from the end of the assessment year.Court's Treatment: The Tribunal did not explicitly discuss this ground in detail but proceeded on the basis of the material on record and arguments of the Department. The dismissal of the appeals implicitly indicates the Tribunal found no merit in this contention or that it was not substantiated sufficiently to affect the outcome.Conclusion: The Tribunal did not interfere with the reopening notice or reassessment order on this ground.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'From plain language of section 263 of the Act, Principal CIT if he consider deems fit in appropriate cases, may also pass an order enhancing the assessment order and thereby directing fresh assessment.''The AO not only failed to consider the evidence presented by PPPL but also refused to provide it an opportunity of being heard during reassessment proceedings.''The amount of Rs. 3.95 crores, having arisen from business activity and not refunded for years, had assumed the character of income and ought to have been taxed accordingly.''The assessment order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, primarily on account of failure of the AO to properly examine the nature and taxability of the amount received.'Final determinations:The revision order under section 263 enhancing the assessment was valid and justified.The sum of Rs. 3.95 crores was rightly treated as undisclosed income of the assessee.The penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was upheld as justified.The reassessment proceedings and notice under section 148 were not interfered with, implicitly affirming their validity.