Unexplained purchase and profit computation in assessment: s.263 revision partly quashed, de novo inquiry upheld for one supplier

Revision under s.263 was examined on whether the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial in relation to alleged unexplained purchases/sales and profit computation. For purchases linked to sales already accepted in the seller's hands and concluded in first appeal, the Tribunal held the amount could not be treated as unexplained in the purchaser's hands and the PCIT could not direct the AO to undo the CIT(A)'s finding; revision was quashed to that extent. For purchases from another supplier whose sales were not shown to have been accepted (the supplier faced addition for bogus sales despite surrender), the AO's enquiry was held incomplete, justifying PCIT's direction for de novo assessment; revision was upheld on this issue. Non-explanation of differing net profit figures also supported de novo consideration, and audit-objection-based initiation was held valid. Appeal partly allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the assumption of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 in respect of alleged bogus purchases, particularly purchases from concerns related to Shri Ajay Rawat and from M/s Ambaji Hallmark Gold, was valid on the ground that the assessment order was "erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue".

1.2 Whether the direction under Section 263 to reconsider disallowance of purchases was sustainable where the corresponding sales had already been accepted/explained in the assessment or appellate proceedings in the hands of the selling party.

1.3 Whether the discrepancy between net profit as per the audited profit and loss account and the lower profit taken in the computation of income justified exercise of revisional powers under Section 263.

1.4 Whether initiation and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 became invalid merely because it was triggered at the instance of an audit objection.

1.5 Whether, on the facts, the original assessment order suffered from lack of proper enquiry so as to fall within Explanation 2 to Section 263 and justify setting aside the assessment for de novo consideration.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

2.1 Validity of Section 263 in relation to purchases linked to sales made by Shri Ajay Rawat

Interpretation and reasoning

2.1.1 The Tribunal noted that in the case of Shri Ajay Rawat, the first appellate authority had already quashed the addition on account of unexplained sales and held that sales amounting to Rs. 3,25,60,242 were fully explained.

2.1.2 It held that once such sales were accepted as explained in the hands of the seller, those very transactions could not simultaneously be treated as unexplained in the hands of the purchaser.

2.1.3 Any direction under Section 263 which would effectively require the Assessing Officer to undo or disregard the finding of the first appellate authority in the seller's case was held to be impermissible.

Conclusion

2.1.4 The Tribunal held that, to the extent the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 pertained to purchases corresponding to sales made by Shri Ajay Rawat, the jurisdiction was improperly exercised and could not be sustained.

2.2 Validity of Section 263 with respect to purchases from M/s Ambaji Hallmark Gold and other unverifiable purchases

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.2.1 The Principal Commissioner invoked Section 263 read with Explanation 2, treating the assessment as "erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" on the ground of failure by the Assessing Officer to make necessary enquiries regarding substantial purchases for which bills were allegedly not produced and whose veracity remained unverified.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2.2 The Tribunal found that, unlike in the case of Shri Ajay Rawat, there was insufficient material to show that sales made by M/s Ambaji Hallmark Gold had been fully accepted by the Department. In that concern's assessment, the Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 73,56,343 as bogus sales, even after considering surrender under PMGKY.

2.2.3 In these circumstances, it could not be said that the Department had accepted those sales, nor that the corresponding purchases in the assessee's hands stood automatically accepted.

2.2.4 The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's enquiry regarding such purchases was not taken to its logical conclusion and there was a failure to adequately verify the genuineness/ veracity of these purchases.

2.2.5 On this basis, the Tribunal agreed with the Principal Commissioner that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and fell within the ambit of Explanation 2 to Section 263.

2.2.6 The Tribunal further clarified that, once the matter is set aside for de novo assessment, the Assessing Officer is required to independently apply mind to the facts and to determine under which specific provision(s) of the Act, if any, disallowances or additions should be made, without being unduly influenced by the remarks in the revisional order.

Conclusion

2.2.7 The exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 and the direction to restore the issue of purchases from M/s Ambaji Hallmark Gold and other unverified purchases to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration were upheld as valid.

2.3 Discrepancy in net profit between audited accounts and computation of income

Interpretation and reasoning

2.3.1 The Principal Commissioner found that the assessee took net profit of Rs. 34,14,086 in the computation of income, whereas the audited profit and loss account disclosed net profit of Rs. 44,83,385, resulting in a lower profit of Rs. 10,69,299 being offered to tax.

2.3.2 The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not explained this discrepancy either before the Principal Commissioner or before the Tribunal.

2.3.3 It held that the Assessing Officer had failed to notice and examine this mismatch at the assessment stage.

Conclusion

2.3.4 The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner was justified in invoking Section 263 on this aspect and in directing the Assessing Officer to recompute income by properly considering the net profit as per audited accounts in de novo proceedings.

2.4 Effect of audit objection on the validity of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.4.1 The assessee contended that the revisional proceedings were vitiated as they were initiated at the instance of an audit objection.

2.4.2 The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in "Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd." and applied the principle that the mere fact that the error is discovered as a result of an audit objection does not invalidate otherwise lawful exercise of power.

Conclusion

2.4.3 The contention that the Section 263 proceedings were bad in law solely because they were triggered by an audit objection was rejected; the revisional jurisdiction was held to be valid on this ground.

2.5 Lack of proper enquiry by the Assessing Officer and applicability of Explanation 2 to Section 263

Interpretation and reasoning

2.5.1 The Principal Commissioner concluded that failure by the Assessing Officer to call for and examine purchase bills for a substantial portion of declared purchases, and failure to address the profit discrepancy, amounted to non-enquiry and non-application of mind.

2.5.2 The Tribunal accepted that, except in relation to purchases linked to sales by Shri Ajay Rawat (which were already held explained in appellate proceedings), the Assessing Officer had not carried the enquiries on purchases and on the profit discrepancy to a logical conclusion.

2.5.3 Such failure rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue within the meaning of Section 263 read with Explanation 2.

2.5.4 The Tribunal emphasised that, in de novo assessment, the Assessing Officer must independently evaluate the material and is not bound to mechanically follow the Principal Commissioner's quantification or choice of sections for addition.

Conclusion

2.5.5 The order under Section 263 was upheld as valid in relation to unverified purchases (other than those linked to Shri Ajay Rawat) and the profit discrepancy, and was set aside only to the limited extent it sought to treat purchases relatable to the explained sales of Shri Ajay Rawat as erroneous and prejudicial. The appeal was thus partly allowed.

---