PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 jurisdiction at AO's instance, leasehold land exempted from Section 56(2)(x)

The Calcutta HC upheld the Tribunal's decision setting aside the PCIT's order under Section 263. The Court held that PCIT incorrectly invoked Section 263 jurisdiction at the AO's instance, which is impermissible. Regarding Section 56(2)(x) applicability on leasehold land acquisition, the Court found the provision did not apply as the agreement predated its insertion (effective 1.4.2017). The assessee acquired property under government incentives with 100% reimbursement, negating any benefit from lower valuation. The property was scientifically valued by a registered valuer and required substantial development costs. On Section 43B disallowance for provision reversal, the Court noted PCIT failed to consider the assessee's explanation that reversing previously disallowed provisions would constitute impermissible double addition. The PCIT's order demonstrated non-application of mind and factual incorrectness. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be invoked when the assessment order is alleged to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue due to lack of due and proper enquiry and verification'Whether the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act can be validly invoked by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) at the instance of the Assessing Officer'Whether Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 applies to acquisition of leasehold property during the assessment year 2018-19 when there is a difference between the consideration paid and the stamp duty value'Whether reversal or write-back of a provision for liabilities disallowed under Section 43B of the Act results in an excess claim of deduction, and if so, how should it be treated for taxation purposes?

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The Tribunal was justified in quashing the order under Section 263 as the PCIT's invocation of jurisdiction was based solely on the reference made by the Assessing Officer, which is "incorrect" and contrary to settled legal position; the "twin conditions" of erroneous order and prejudice to Revenue were not satisfied.The PCIT could not validly invoke jurisdiction under Section 263 merely "at the instance of the Assessing Officer" without independent satisfaction manifested in the show-cause notice, rendering the exercise of power invalid.Section 56(2)(x) was not applicable to the acquisition of the leasehold property in question because the agreement for sale predated the insertion of Section 56(2)(x) (effective from 1.4.2017), and the valuation adopted by the registered valuer was based on scientific methods and duly considered by the Assessing Officer; thus, the PCIT's order under Section 263 on this ground was unsustainable.The reversal or write-back of a provision disallowed under Section 43B cannot be taxed again as it would amount to "double addition" which is impermissible under law; the PCIT failed to consider the assessee's explanation and relevant judicial precedent, justifying the Tribunal's setting aside of the PCIT's order on this issue.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory framework of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, which requires that the assessment order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest, and that the PCIT must independently form and manifest satisfaction before invoking jurisdiction.The Court recognized the principle that jurisdiction under Section 263 cannot be invoked merely on the Assessing Officer's request, reaffirming settled precedent that the PCIT's satisfaction must be independent and recorded.Regarding valuation and applicability of Section 56(2)(x), the Court considered the effective date of the statutory amendment and valuation principles, noting that the existence of Section 50C indicates that stamp duty valuation is not absolute and can be contested by the assessee through expert valuation.In relation to Section 43B, the Court relied on the principle that expenses disallowed when created cannot be taxed again upon reversal, referencing relevant case law to prevent double taxation, and criticized the PCIT's failure to address this legal position.

---