AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 856
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. Pr. CIT exercising his revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act inspected the records and observed that the assessee was engaged in the transportation business. During the course of scrutiny assessment, a summary ledger of all transportation charges was furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer (in short "the AO"). He observed from the said records that the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs. 21,47,21,520/- as transportation expenses during the year under consideration. The Ld. Pr. CIT further noted that the assessee had deducted TDS of Rs. 2,08,282/- only in respect of the transportation charges paid amount of Rs. 20,82,820/- out of total transportation charges paid of Rs. 21,47,21,520/-. Ld. Pr. CIT observed that as per provision of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act the assessee was supposed to deduct TDS in respect of the remaining transportation charges paid. The ld. Pr. CIT also observed that as per the records, the assessee had claimed to have paid an amount of Rs. 20,12,10,816/- as transportation charges, however, in the P&L Account, the assessee had debited an amount of Rs. 21,47,21,520/- as transportation charges. He, therefore, observed that an excess ded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he aforesaid issues during the scrutiny assessment proceeding. He accordingly, set aside the assessment order for de novo assessment on the aforesaid issues. Being aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before us. 3. We have heard rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us referred to various documents including the queries raised by the AO and the replies thereto given by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in this respect has referred to letter dated 23.09.2021 annexed at page 83 of the paper book to submit that the assessee had furnished before the AO summary of transportation charges as per the format provided by the AO and had duly explained the amount of Rs. 21,47,21,520/- claimed as transportation expenses including Rs. 60,76,655/- as toll charges. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in this respect has referred to page 14 of the paper book. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further referred to pages 22 to 24 of the additional paper book to submit that it was explained before the AO that a sum of Rs. 31,50,000/- was reversal of the payment from Harihar Yadav. It was explained that the total....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. ........." 4.1. The sum and substance of the above reproduced section 263(1) can be summarized in the following points: 1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under the Act; 2) If he considers that the order passed by the AO is (i) erroneous; and (ii) is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue; 3) He has to give an opportunity of hearing in this respect to the assessee; and 4) He has to make or cause to make such enquiry as he deems necessary; 5) He may pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify including, (i) an order enhancing or, (ii) modifying the assessment or (iii) cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. 5. As per the provisions of section 263 as enumerated above, after getting the explanation from the assessee, the Ld. Pr. CIT was supposed to examine the contention of the assessee. Before passing an order of modifying, enhancing or cancelling the assessment, he was supposed either to himself make or cause to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 263(1) of the Act, held that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the ground of lack of enquiry. However, as observed above, the Ld. Counsel has demonstrated from the records that all the discrepancies pointed out by the Ld. PCIT regarding lack of enquiries, were factually incorrect. The Ld. Counsel has demonstrated that all the points regarding which the Ld. PCIT has mentioned that the Assessing Officer should have made enquiry, were duly enquired into by the Assessing Officer. The observations of the Ld. PCIT, therefore, were a general observation and no specific observation has been made in respect of any of the details or evidence furnished by the assessee and as to why the ld. Pr. CIT was not satisfied about such details/replies furnished by the assessee. Simply because the ld. Pr. CIT felt that the Assessing Officer should have made further enquiries on the same issue or that the case was to be examined from some another angle, the same, in our view, cannot be a valid ground to set aside the assessment order. If such an action is allowed by the ld. Pr. CIT in revision jurisdiction, then there would be no end....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to pass a fresh order. At this stage, before considering the multi-fold contentions of the ld. Representatives, we deem it pertinent to take note of the fundamental tests propounded in various judgments relevant for judging the action of the ld. Pr. CIT taken u/s 263. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) has laid down following ratio with regard to provisions of section 263 of the Act: "There can be no doubt that the provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer; it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uate material to satisfy that the decision taken by the AO is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The concept of "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" has to be correctly and soundly understood. It precisely means an order which has not been passed in consonance with the principles of law which has in ultimate eventuate affected realization of lawful revenue either by the State has not been realized or it has gone beyond realization. These two basic ingredients have to be satisfied as sine qua non for exercise of such power. On a perusal of the material brought on record and the order passed by the CIT it is perceptible that the said authority has not kept in view the requirement of s. 263 of the Act inasmuch as the order does not reflect any kind of satisfaction. As is manifest the said authority has been governed by a singular factor that the order of the AO is wrong. That may be so but that is not enough. What was the sequitur or consequence of such order qua prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue should have been focused upon. That having not been done, in our considered opinion, exercise of jurisdiction under s. 263 of the Act is total....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymer reported in 341 ITR 537 has held as under: "We are thus of the opinion that the provisions of s. 263 of the Act, when read as a composite whole make it incumbent upon the CIT before exercising revisional powers to: (i) call for and examine the record, and (ii) give the assessee an opportunity of being heard and thereafter to make or cause to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary. It is only on fulfilment of these twin conditions that the CIT may pass an order exercising his power of revision. Minutely examined, the provisions of the section envisage that the CIT may call for the records and if he prima facie considers that any order passed therein by the AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, he may after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify. The twin requirements of the section are manifestly for a purpose. Merely because the CIT considers on examination of the record that the order has been erroneously passed so as to prejud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 13.1. The ITAT in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO, Mumbai, 101 TTJ 1095, analyzed in detail various authoritative pronouncements including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83 and has propounded the following broader principle to judge the action of CIT taken under section 263: "(i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both the conditions must be fulfilled. (ii) Sec. 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the AO and it was only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. (iii) An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will suffice the requirement of order being erroneous. (iv) If the order is passed without application of mind, such order will fall under the category of erroneous order. (v) Every loss of revenue cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and if the AO has adopted one of the courses permissible under law or where two views are possible and the AO has taken one vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion figures but he had reservations. The CIT in the order has recorded that the consideration receivable was examined by the Assessing Officer but was not properly examined and therefore the assessment order is "erroneous". The said finding will be correct, if the CIT had examined and verified the said transaction himself and given a finding on merits. As held above, a distinction must be drawn in the cases where the Assessing Officer does not conduct an enquiry; as lack of enquiry by itself renders the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and cases where the Assessing Officer conducts enquiry but finding recorded is erroneous and which is also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In latter cases, the CIT has to examine the order of the Assessing Officer on merits or the decision taken by the Assessing Officer on merits and then hold and form an opinion on merits that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the second set of cases, CIT cannot direct the Assessing Officer to conduct further enquiry to verify and find out whether the order passed is erroneous or not." 6.2. Furt....