2025 (9) TMI 371 - AT - Income Tax

Revision under section 263 quashed where assessing officer performed limited scrutiny, accepted verified return; issues outside scope cannot justify revision

Fineotex Chemical Limited Versus PCIT-4, Mumbai

Fineotex Chemical Limited Versus PCIT-4, Mumbai - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Commissioner's revisional jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised to reopen or direct adjudication of issues that were outside the scope of a limited scrutiny (CASS) assessment. 2. Whether an Assessing Officer's acceptance of returned income after completing the limited scrutiny precludes exercise of revisional jurisdiction on issues not encompassed by the limited scrutiny parameters. 3. Whether a change of opinion by the Commissioner (i.e., disagreement with a plausible view adopted by the Assessing Officer) constitutes a valid basis for invoking section 263. 4. Whether the twin conditions for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 263-(i) an error in the AO's order and (ii) prejudice to the revenue-are satisfied on the facts where the AO conducted limited scrutiny and did not expand it into complete scrutiny. 5. Whether a remedial power under section 263 can be exercised by remand alone where the AO has conducted inquiries and reached a conclusion without establishing a failure of investigation. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Scope of Section 263 vis-à-vis Limited Scrutiny (CASS) Legal framework: Under the limited scrutiny/CASS regime the Assessing Officer is required to confine verification to specified parameters forming the basis of selection; expansion to complete scrutiny is permitted only in revenue-potential cases with recorded reasons and prior approval of the competent authority. Precedent treatment: The Court relied upon higher-court authority distinguishing a true failure of investigation from a considered decision on merits; the earlier pronouncements emphasise restricting the AO's inquiry to selected parameters and require recorded reasons and approval for enlargement. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reasoned that where the AO performed the prescribed verification under limited scrutiny and did not convert it into complete scrutiny (no record, no approval), issues outside the selected parameters cannot be legitimately revisited under section 263. The Commissioner's power must therefore be confined to the parameters of selection unless procedural safeguards for expansion were complied with. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - revisional jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be used to direct adjudication of issues that were not within the limited scrutiny parameters in the absence of recorded reasons and proper approval to expand scope. Conclusion: The revisional order purporting to reopen issues outside the CASS parameters (CSR/section 80G and education cess disallowance) was beyond permissible scope and unsustainable. Issue 2 - Effect of AO's Completion of Limited Scrutiny on Revisional Power Legal framework: Section 263 permits revision where the AO's order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue; where the AO conducts enquiries and accepts the assessee's stand, that acceptance is to be treated as the AO's considered conclusion. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal applied higher-court reasoning that once the AO carries out investigation and does not make an addition, it signifies acceptance of the assessee's stand; only in cases of actual failure of investigation or recorded lapse would revisional remand be justified. Interpretation and reasoning: The AO had completed the limited scrutiny, accepted the returned income and had not undertaken a superficial or aborted inquiry. No case of failure of investigation was established. The Commissioner could not sustain a revisionary order merely by recording disagreement with AO's conclusion without demonstrating error and prejudice. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - acceptance by AO after completing required verification under limited scrutiny precludes exercise of section 263 unless there is shown to be an actual failure of investigation or both conditions of error and prejudice are satisfied. Conclusion: The absence of any established failure of investigation or absence of enquiry by the AO bars maintaining the revisional order; consequently the revisional exercise was improper. Issue 3 - Change of Opinion vs. Valid Exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction Legal framework: Section 263 cannot be used to convert mere disagreement with a plausible view taken by the AO into a basis for revision; the power is not to be exercised simply for a change of opinion. Precedent treatment: Consistent higher-court authority was applied that distinguishes a mere change of opinion from demonstrable error causing prejudice to revenue; where the AO's view is plausible and based on enquiry, revisional power is not available. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the CSR/section 80G issue was the subject of differing views in co-ordinate forum decisions and therefore was a debatable matter. The AO's acceptance after verification constituted a plausible view. The Commissioner's contrary view amounted to a change of opinion and could not be the basis for section 263 action absent error and prejudice. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a change of opinion by the Commissioner, without demonstration of error and prejudice in the AO's order, is not a valid basis for invoking section 263. Conclusion: The revisional order premised on the Commissioner's differing opinion was not tenable. Issue 4 - Twin Conditions under Section 263: Error and Prejudice Legal framework: Exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 263 requires coexistence of (i) an error apparent in the AO's order and (ii) prejudice to the interests of revenue; both conditions are mandatory. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal followed authoritative pronouncements affirming the twin-condition test and applying it to facts where inquiries were conducted and the AO reached a conclusion. Interpretation and reasoning: On the facts, no error in the AO's order was shown; the AO had carried out the limited scrutiny and accepted the returned income. The record did not demonstrate that the AO's conclusion was erroneous or had caused prejudice to revenue. The Commissioner did not make any addition on merits nor did he record an abject failure of the AO's investigation to justify remit or correction. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - absent demonstrable error and resultant prejudice, a section 263 order cannot be sustained; a simple disagreement or retrospective change of law clarification does not alone satisfy the twin conditions. Conclusion: The twin conditions for valid exercise of section 263 were not met; therefore the revisional order was quashed. Issue 5 - Remedy by Revision: Remand versus Merits Correction Legal framework: Where the AO has undertaken inquiry but erred in conclusion, the Commissioner may correct on merits by making an addition; where there is an abject failure of investigation, a remand may be warranted but only upon recording failure and prejudice. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on authority distinguishing when remand is permissible (failure to investigate) and when the Commissioner must either decide on merits or not interfere. Interpretation and reasoning: The facts did not establish any abject failure or lapse in investigation by the AO. The Commissioner did not make an addition on merits and instead set aside the assessment for adjudication of issues outside the limited scrutiny. Such a remand without establishing failure was impermissible. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - remand under section 263 is permissible only where there is recorded failure of investigation causing prejudice; absent that, Commissioner must either decide on merits or refrain from revisional interference. Conclusion: The Commissioner's approach of remanding without demonstrating failure of AO's investigation or deciding on merits was unsustainable; the revisional order was invalid. Overall Disposition In view of the above analyses, the revisional order under section 263 was set aside and the appeal was allowed because (i) the AO had confined himself to the limited scrutiny parameters and had accepted the return after verification; (ii) issues outside those parameters could not be legitimately revisited absent proper recorded reasons and approval to expand scrutiny; (iii) no failure of investigation was established; and (iv) the mandatory twin conditions of error and prejudice for exercise of section 263 were not satisfied.