Section 263 Revision Upheld for AO's Failure to Verify Expenses and Apply TDS Provisions Properly

ITAT Mumbai upheld the revision under section 263, finding that the AO committed an error prejudicial to the revenue by failing to verify the genuineness of certain expenditures, including sales and marketing expenses, displacement compensation, lease rent, interest-free loans, and depreciation claims. The AO did not examine applicability of TDS provisions or conduct necessary inquiries. The claimed work-in-progress expenses affecting profits in subsequent years required scrutiny in the current assessment year. The PCIT, after providing opportunity to the assessee, concluded the twin conditions of error and prejudice to revenue were met. Reliance was placed on Explanation 2 to section 263 inserted by Finance Act 2015 and relevant SC decisions. The appeal was dismissed and revision order upheld against the assessee.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the revisional jurisdiction exercised under section 263 of the Income Tax Act was correctly invoked.Whether the twin conditions of "error" and "prejudicial to the interest of Revenue" were fulfilled in the assessment order.Whether the Assessing Officer adequately verified the genuineness and deductibility of claimed expenses and other claims such as depreciation, interest, and work-in-progress.Whether failure to conduct enquiries and verification by the Assessing Officer amounts to an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.Whether the explanation 2 inserted to section 263 by the Finance Act, 2015, and related CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2015, clarifies the scope of revisional jurisdiction in cases of non-verification.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was correctly exercised as the Assessing Officer's order was "erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue" due to failure to conduct necessary enquiries and verification.The twin conditions of "error" and "prejudicial to the interest of Revenue" were satisfied because the Assessing Officer did not verify the genuineness of significant expenditures, depreciation claims, interest disallowance, and work-in-progress, which have a bearing on profits and tax liability.The Assessing Officer failed to examine whether TDS was deducted on payments such as displacement compensation, consultancy fees, and lease rent, and did not disallow interest on interest-free loans to related parties, which warranted revision.The claim of depreciation was not supported by documentary proof of asset acquisition and use, and work-in-progress was not verified despite its materiality in the builder's accounts under the "percentage completion method."The explanation 2 to section 263 and CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2015 confirm that an order passed without conducting enquiries and verification that ought to have been done is "erroneous" and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, justifying revision under section 263.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory framework of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, including the amendment by the Finance Act, 2015, and the interpretative guidance from CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2015.Precedents from the Supreme Court and various High Courts were relied upon, including "Malabar Industrial Co." and "Max India Ltd.," establishing that failure to conduct necessary enquiries and verification renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial.The Court emphasized that the genuineness and applicability of claimed expenses and deductions must be examined in the year they are reflected in the books, including compliance with TDS provisions.The Court noted that the Assessing Officer's failure to verify key claims such as displacement compensation, consultancy fees, lease rent, depreciation, interest on loans, and work-in-progress constituted an error warranting revision.The Court affirmed the principle that the revisional power under section 263 is to be exercised where the order is erroneous and prejudicial, especially when enquiries that should have been made were omitted, as supported by multiple judicial decisions cited.

---