Section 263 Not Invoked as AO's Assessment on Loan Interest Was Detailed and Fair

The ITAT Mumbai held that the AO's assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue, thus Section 263 could not be invoked. The AO had conducted a detailed inquiry into the interest on loans to subsidiaries and made appropriate additions for deferred interest recognition due to uncertainties in collection. The assessee demonstrated sufficient own funds for the loans, and charging interest was not mandatory under business expediency principles. Prior acceptance of lower interest rates by the department and disputes over loans to the Indian subsidiary further supported the AO's considered view. Since both conditions for revision under Section 263 were not met, the revision was disallowed and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) had jurisdiction to invoke Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to revise the assessment order.Whether the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.Whether deferral of recognition of interest income on loans extended to subsidiaries complies with the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) and relevant CBDT Circulars.Whether charging interest on loans extended to subsidiaries at the rates applied by the Assessing Officer (AO) or PCIT was justified.Whether invocation of Section 263 based solely on audit objections without independent examination by AO is valid.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had made adequate enquiries and taken a permissible view; hence, the revisionary order is "bad in law and void-ab initio".The assessment order was neither "erroneous" nor "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" since the AO conducted thorough inquiry, issued notices under Section 142(1), and made an addition of Rs. 1,58,37,000/- reflecting considered judgment.The deferral of interest income recognition by the assessee was not accepted by the AO based on ICDS IV and CBDT Circular No. 10/2017, which provide that "interest shall accrue on time basis" and cannot be deferred; accordingly, the addition of deferred interest was justified.The interest rate of 7.5% charged on the international loan was a permissible view, especially given prior acceptance of even lower rates by the department; no interest was charged on the domestic subsidiary loan due to business exigency and subsequent write-off, consistent with Supreme Court precedent.Invocation of Section 263 solely on audit objections without independent AO examination is impermissible; reliance on audit objections alone renders the revisionary order illegal and bad in law.

RATIONALE:

The legal framework requires that for invoking Section 263, the assessment order must be both "erroneous" and "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue".Precedents from the Supreme Court (PCIT vs. Pramod Kumar Tekriwal and PCIT vs. Cartier Leaflin (P.) Ltd.) establish that if the AO adopts a "plausible view," Section 263 cannot be invoked, even if some aspects were not examined exhaustively.The Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) IV on Revenue Recognition and CBDT Circular No. 10/2017 clarify that interest income accrues on a time basis and cannot be deferred based on uncertainty of collection; however, subsequent non-recovery may be claimed as deduction under Section 36(1)(vii).The Supreme Court ruling in PCIT vs. E City Investments and Holdings Pvt. Ltd. confirms that loans extended to subsidiaries for business exigency may not attract interest income recognition, supporting the assessee's treatment of the domestic subsidiary loan.The Tribunal applied these principles and found that the AO's order was a "permissible view" supported by adequate inquiry, and the PCIT's revisionary order was unsupported by independent findings, thus failing the dual condition for Section 263.

---