ITAT sets aside revision order directing section 40A(3) verification after assessee provided complete documentation

The ITAT Delhi set aside the PCIT's revision order u/s 263 directing verification of section 40A(3) applicability. The AO had specifically queried cash purchases/payments and the assessee provided detailed documentation including ITR, audited accounts, and VAT orders before the assessment order was passed. Following the SC precedent in PCIT Surat-2 vs. Shree Ji Prints, the tribunal held that invoking Explanation 2 to section 263 without prior notice to the assessee was inappropriate and legally unsustainable, allowing the appeal.

---

---

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal pertain to the validity and legality of the revision proceedings initiated under Section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, against the reassessment orders passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. Specifically, the issues revolve around:

• Whether the notice, proceedings, and order passed under Section 263 are void ab initio, illegal, unjustifiable, or bad in law.
• Whether the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (PCIT) erred in invoking Section 263 without properly considering the submissions and objections raised by the assessee during reassessment proceedings.
• Whether the reassessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) were valid, particularly in light of the alleged non-speaking disposal of objections and the time frame within which the reassessment orders were passed after disposing of objections.
• Whether the invocation of Explanation 2(a) to subsection (1) of Section 263 was appropriate and lawful in the absence of specific notice to the assessee.
• Whether the AO conducted proper verification and examination regarding the applicability of Section 40A(3) of the Act concerning high-value cash withdrawals and payments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Validity of Revision Proceedings under Section 263:

The legal framework under Section 263 empowers the PCIT to revise any order passed by an AO if it is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. However, Explanation 2(a) to subsection (1) of Section 263 restricts the revision of orders passed after the AO has made proper inquiries and verification.

The Tribunal examined the Apex Court ruling in PCIT, Surat-2 vs. Shree Ji Prints P Ltd., which held that the show-cause notice under Section 263 must explicitly mention the invocation of Explanation 2 to Section 263 if relied upon. In the present case, the PCIT's show-cause notice dated 24.11.2023 did not indicate reliance on Explanation 2(a), rendering the subsequent order invoking it unsustainable.

The AO had issued specific queries under Section 142(1) regarding cash payments and purchases under Section 40A(3). The assessee responded with detailed submissions and documentary evidence, including audited financial statements and VAT orders. The reassessment order dated 29.03.2022 was passed after considering these materials, indicating proper inquiry and verification by the AO.

The Tribunal concluded that since the AO conducted proper verification and the Explanation 2(a) was not properly invoked by the PCIT, the revision order under Section 263 was not sustainable.

2. Disposal of Objections by the AO and Validity of Reassessment Orders:

The assessee contended that the AO disposed of objections raised during reassessment by a non-speaking order and failed to address all objections, rendering the reassessment order void ab initio. The objections raised included issues such as borrowed satisfaction, change of opinion, mechanical approval under Section 151, non-supply of CTR and investigation reports, and reassessment based on wrong facts.

The Tribunal noted that out of six objections raised by the assessee, four were disposed of by non-speaking orders, and two were not disposed of at all. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. vs. ITO, which mandates that objections must be properly considered and disposed of, failing which the reassessment order may be invalid.

However, since the primary ground relating to the invalidity of the Section 263 order was allowed, the Tribunal did not adjudicate further on this ground, rendering it infructuous in the present context.

3. Timeframe for Passing Reassessment Orders Post Disposal of Objections:

The assessee argued that the reassessment orders were passed within less than four weeks from the date of disposal of objections, contrary to judicial precedents, thereby making the orders void. The Tribunal referred to judgments including Pradyot K Mishra vs. ACIT and others, which emphasize that reassessment orders passed prematurely post objections disposal violate principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Despite this, the Tribunal refrained from deciding this issue explicitly as the primary ground on the invalidity of the revision order under Section 263 had been accepted, making further adjudication unnecessary.

4. Applicability and Verification under Section 40A(3):

Section 40A(3) disallows expenditure if payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 are made in cash, subject to certain exceptions. The AO had raised queries on high-value cash withdrawals and payments aggregating over Rs. 4.47 crores. The assessee submitted purchase ledgers and other documents to justify the payments.

The AO considered the investigation report, VAT department acceptance of trading results, and consistency with previous years' assessments. The AO also acknowledged that even if Section 40A(3) was violated, only the profit element attributable to such payments could be added to income, as supported by judicial precedents.

The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted adequate verification and inquiry, and the reassessment order was based on proper material, negating the PCIT's contention that the AO had ignored frequent cash withdrawals.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The assessee's representative emphasized procedural lapses by the PCIT in invoking Explanation 2(a) without notice and highlighted the AO's proper inquiry and consideration of objections. The revenue representative focused on the large cash payments and alleged inadequate inquiry by the AO.

The Tribunal balanced these submissions by closely examining the record, noting the AO's detailed queries and the assessee's comprehensive replies. The Tribunal relied heavily on the Apex Court's ruling on procedural fairness under Section 263 and the necessity of explicit invocation of Explanation 2(a).

Conclusions:

• The revision order under Section 263 passed by the PCIT was held to be unsustainable due to non-compliance with procedural requirements, specifically non-mention of invocation of Explanation 2(a) in the show-cause notice.
• The AO had conducted proper verification and inquiry under Section 40A(3), considering all relevant facts and submissions of the assessee.
• The reassessment orders were upheld as valid on the record, though the Tribunal did not adjudicate certain procedural objections due to the primary ground being allowed.
• Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the PCIT and AO and allowed the appeals for both assessment years.

Significant Holdings:

The Tribunal preserved the following crucial legal reasoning verbatim:

"As per ratio of judgment in the case of PCIT, Surat-2 vs. Shree Ji Prints P Ltd. [2021] 130 taxmann.com 294 (SC) on 27.08.2021 by Apex Court, it is well settled that show-cause-notice dated 24.11.2023 under Section 263 of the Act does not mention that the Explanation 2 to S. 263 is going to be invoked. So, invocation of the Explanation in order without confronting the assessee is not appropriate and sustainable in Law."

This establishes the core principle that procedural fairness under Section 263 requires explicit notice if Explanation 2(a) is to be invoked, failing which the revision order is liable to be quashed.

Additionally, the Tribunal emphasized that proper verification by the AO during reassessment negates the applicability of Explanation 2(a), thereby protecting the AO's order from revision.

Final determinations include:

• The order under Section 263 is quashed as void and unsustainable.
• The reassessment orders under Section 147 read with Section 144B are upheld as valid and passed after due verification.
• Other grounds relating to non-speaking disposal of objections and timing of reassessment orders were rendered infructuous due to the primary ground's acceptance.

---