Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the PCIT's order which set aside the assessment framed under section 147. The PCIT held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue because the AO had not inquired into the investment in equity shares and other issues. The AO had initiated proceedings under section 147/148 for the acquisition of shares amounting to Rs. 21 lakhs.
Held
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263, as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not made any additions, and re-opening on issues that could not have led to additions was not justified. The revision directions of the PCIT were reversed.
Key Issues
Whether the PCIT erred in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263 when the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue?
Sections Cited
147, 263, 148, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (in short “PCIT”), Faridabad’s DIN and order no. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2023- 24/1060777835(1), dated 12.02.2024 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
This assessee’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds: i. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. L.d. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 263 of the Act in the case and the notice so issued is bad in law, more so, when the assessment order in question was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. ii. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. PCIT has erred in law and in facts by passing order u/s 263 setting aside order of the assessing officer and in holding that the assessment order in question was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. iii. In any view of the matter and in any case, the issue of notice u/s 263 and the order passed under that section are beyond jurisdiction of the L.d. PCIT and against the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. PCTT has erred in law in directing A.O. to examine the details of purchase of shares, year of acquisition and cost of acquisition and that too when it was established that purchase was more than 11 years ago and any inquiry would be barred by limitation and has further erred in directing A.O. to examine the loss claimed by the assessee. v. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. PCIT has erred in passing the order without following the law on the matter and flouting the principles of natural justice and more-so without appreciation of the facts on records.
Suffice to say, the assessee/appellant herein is aggrieved against the learned PCIT’s revision direction holding assessing authority’s section 147 r.w.s. 144B assessment framed in his case on 11th March, 2022; as erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue since having not inquired/verified issue of investment in equity shares and various other issues etc. during scrutiny. This being the clinching factual position, we note from 2 | P a g e the case records that the assessing authority had initiated section 148/147 proceedings against the assessee regarding the sole issue of acquisition of shares in M/s. Left Right Learning Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.21 lakhs which stood concluded without their being any addition made in the appellant/assessee’s hands.
Learned CIT(DR) could hardly dispute in this factual backdrop that given the fact that the Assessing Officer had not made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening, his failure to examine any other issue on which no addition could have been made going by Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.); and, therefore, we hereby conclude that the above assessment framed on 11th March, 2022 is neither an erroneous one much less that causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue so as to trigger section 263 revision mechanism. We accordingly reverse learned PCIT’s revision directions herein and restore the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed in assessee’s case as the necessary corollary thereto.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd May, 2025