2025 (9) TMI 652 - AT - Income Tax

Tax authority validly invoked s.263 to reopen assessment under section 147 read with section 144B over s.54F claim

Tejashree Atul Patil Versus PCIT, Pune-2

ITAT PUNE - AT held that PCIT validly invoked s.263 to set aside the assessment passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B because the AO failed to examine escapement of ... Revision u/s 263 - exemption u/s 54F - PCIT called for the assessment records and observed that AO had apparently failed to notice that all conditions for eligibility under the provisions of section 54F were not fulfilled by the assessee - HELD THAT:- The issue mentioned in the reasons recorded and the transaction of sale of immovable property are directly connected and ld. AO had to examine this transaction and also the income earned for the year. Once the sale of immovable property is to be enquired, then the details filed by the assessee relating to cost of acquisition, any deduction under the capital gains head if any made before the AO requires to be examined so as to assess the income of the assessee for the year. This argument of assessee that the issue raised by ld. PCIT in the show cause notice regarding claim of deduction u/s. 54F is different from the reasons recorded by AO for carrying out the re-assessment proceedings is incorrect because there is direct connection of the deduction u/s. 54F of the Act in the given case of escapement of income. It is not the case where the assessee has filed the return of income and showed the transaction but it is a case where inspite of having entering into a transaction of sale of immovable property, assessee has decided not to file the return of income. Therefore, issue referred by ld. PCIT in the show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act was the subject matter of the proceedings initiated u/s. 147 of the Act for carrying out the re-assessment proceedings. AO was required to examine the issue of escapement of income and was required to raise specific queries for the transaction regarding sale of immovable property and income earned during the year. AO miserably failed to make necessary enquiry to examine the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. So far as the judgments relied and referred by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, we find that they are not applicable on the facts of the instant case. In our considered view, assessee fails to succeed on the Ground Nos. 1 to 3 challenging the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act by ld. PCIT and are therefore dismissed. So far as merits of the case, in absence of any specific contentions given by ld. Counsel for the assessee, we are inclined to confirm the finding of ld.PCIT that the assessment order for A.Y. 2015-16 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s.144B of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and ld. PCIT has rightly set aside the issue to the file of ld. AO for examining the claim of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. Decided against assessee. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Commissioner (PCIT) was justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 to revise an assessment framed after reopening under section 147 where the reassessment proceeded on the basis of escapement of income by reason of a large cash payment and the Commissioner questioned allowance of exemption under section 54F. 2. Whether the Commissioner's action under section 263 was limited to matters specifically recorded as reasons for reopening under section 147, i.e., whether a purportedly 'new' issue (claim of exemption under section 54F) could be examined in revision when it was directly connected to the transaction that formed the basis for reopening. 3. Whether the assessment order was 'erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' within the meaning of section 263, having regard to (a) failure of the Assessing Officer to make necessary inquiries about source and utilisation of sale proceeds and (b) non-fulfilment of conditions for exemption under section 54F (including deposit in a capital gains account before the return due date). 4. Whether the delay of 237 days in preferring the appeal to the Tribunal should be condoned as a 'reasonable cause'. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Jurisdiction of Commissioner under section 263 to revise an assessment post-reopening Legal framework: Section 263 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine records of any proceeding and, if an order by the Assessing Officer (AO) is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, to revise such order after giving an opportunity of hearing, including directing a fresh assessment. The power involves: (i) calling for records; (ii) forming opinion that the AO's order is erroneous and prejudicial; (iii) issuing show-cause and affording hearing; and (iv) passing appropriate order. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on the principle in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (supra) that section 263 cannot be invoked to correct every mistake; it applies where an order is erroneous (incorrect application of law, incorrect assumption of facts, failure to apply mind, or breach of natural justice) and prejudicial to revenue. Not every loss of revenue or a reasonable view taken by AO will justify revision; the AO's view must be unsustainable in law or fact to be treated as erroneous and prejudicial. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal analysed the four-stage exercise under section 263 and concluded that the Commissioner properly called for records, formed an opinion, issued show-cause notices setting out reasons (deficiencies in satisfaction of section 54F conditions), afforded opportunity of hearing, and then set aside the assessment for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal held that where reassessment was initiated because of undisclosed cash payment and the AO accepted the assessee's explanation that the source was sale of immovable property, the AO was required to examine connected consequences of that sale - including capital gains computation and eligibility for section 54F exemption. Hence, the Commissioner's exercise of section 263 jurisdiction was within statutory bounds to correct an order that had not applied mind to material aspects connected to the grounds for reopening. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - section 263 exercise may validly examine issues that are directly connected to the matters recorded as reasons for reopening under section 147; the Commissioner's jurisdiction is not confined to verbatim restatement of the reopening reasons where connected transactions were not properly examined by the AO. Conclusion: The Commissioner was justified in invoking section 263 on jurisdictional grounds to set aside the assessment for failure of the AO to properly examine material aspects connected to the reasons for reopening. Issue 2 - Whether the Commissioner can raise/consider issues not explicitly recorded in reasons for reopening when they are connected to the recorded reason (relationship between section 147 reasons and matters raised under section 263) Legal framework: Reopening under section 147 requires formation and recording of 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment; the scope of AO's enquiry in reassessment ordinarily flows from that recorded reason. Section 263 permits revision of orders that are erroneous and prejudicial; it does not restrict the Commissioner to only those specific formulations in the reopening note if connected matters arise that were not examined. Precedent treatment: Authorities cited by the assessee were cases where taxpayers had filed regular returns and the Commissioner sought to revise on matters unrelated to the recorded reasons for reopening; those decisions constrained section 263 where relief sought was beyond the scope of reassessment or where two independent assessments of scope were present. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal distinguished the relied authorities on facts: in the present case there was no return filed and the reassessment proceeded because of suspicion of escapement of income tied to a cash transfer. When the assessee asserted sale proceeds as the source, examination of the sale (including capital gains and claim of exemption under section 54F) was necessarily within scope of inquiry. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's concern about allowance of section 54F exemption was directly connected to the recorded reasons for reopening; therefore the Commissioner did not transgress jurisdiction by examining that exemption in revision proceedings. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where the transaction forming the basis of recorded reasons for reopening necessitates examination of ancillary issues (e.g., capital gains exemptions), the Commissioner may examine those issues under section 263; prior decisions where taxpayers had filed returns are distinguishable. Conclusion: The Commissioner validly examined the section 54F claim as it was directly connected to the transaction that formed the basis for reopening; therefore the Commissioner did not assume jurisdiction beyond the scope of proceedings initiated under section 147. Issue 3 - Whether the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue because AO failed to examine eligibility for exemption under section 54F (including deposit in capital gains account by due date) Legal framework: Section 54F grants exemption subject to fulfilment of conditions, including acquisition/construction of a new residential house within prescribed time and, where required, deposit of unutilised sale consideration in a specified capital gains account before the due date for filing return. An exemption wrongly allowed without satisfaction of statutory pre-conditions may render an assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Precedent treatment: Malabar Industrial (supra) establishes that a failure to apply mind or misapplication of law by AO can make an order erroneous and prejudicial; orders accepting claims without requisite inquiry fall within section 263 ambit. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the AO accepted the assessee's claim of sale proceeds as source without conducting necessary inquiries into cost of acquisition, computation of capital gains, or satisfaction of conditions for section 54F (notably the deposit into a capital gains account before the return due date). The Commissioner's show-cause reasoned that a portion of net consideration remained unutilised beyond the due date for filing return and that the conditions of section 54F were not fulfilled. The Tribunal found that the AO's failure to make necessary enquiries constituted lack of application of mind and an erroneous order prejudicial to revenue. Given the assessee's failure to advance specific rebuttal on merits, the Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner's view and upheld setting aside the assessment for fresh adjudication on these issues. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where AO neglects to verify statutory preconditions of an exemption claim in reassessment (especially when assessment was triggered to investigate source/use of sale proceeds), the order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue within section 263. Conclusion: The assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue for failing to examine/verify compliance with section 54F conditions; the Commissioner correctly set aside the assessment for fresh adjudication. Issue 4 - Condonation of delay of 237 days in preferring appeal Legal framework: Appeals to the Tribunal are subject to prescribed limitation; delay may be condoned if reasonable cause is shown, applying established principles (e.g., Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji). Reasonable cause includes genuine reliance on legal advice and lack of awareness of right to appeal. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal considered the assessee's explanation that reliance on legal counsel led to belief that no appeal was necessary because the Commissioner had set aside the issue to the AO, and that the assessee later discovered the right to appeal. The Tribunal treated this as reasonable cause and, applying the cited governing principles, condoned the delay of 237 days, noting no gain accrued from delay. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - reliance on legal advice causing delay can constitute reasonable cause for condonation where not intended to gain advantage and explanation is plausible. Conclusion: Delay of 237 days in filing the appeal was condoned as reasonable cause; appeal was admitted for consideration on merits.