D.JEYANANDH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, TAX CENTRAL-2(4), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 161/CHNY/2021Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 December 2022AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the revisional authority failed to fulfill the twin conditions of the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Since additions were already made protectively and were under challenge before the first appellate authority, no prejudice was caused to the revenue.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals pertained to assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19, challenging revisional orders passed under Section 263. The original assessments were framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C following a search action.

What were the issues?

Whether the Principal Commissioner validly exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 when the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 153C,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan (CIT)-Ld. DR

Heard together (7 matters)

ITA No.158/Chny/2021
ITA No.159/Chny/2021
ITA No.160/Chny/2021
ITA No.161/Chny/2021
ITA No.162/Chny/2021
ITA No.163/Chny/2021
ITA No.164/Chny/2021

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

In all the captioned appeals for Assessment Years (AY) 2012-13 to 2018-19, the assessee contest validity of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 as exercised by learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central- 2, Chennai [Pr. CIT] vide separate orders dated 11-03-2021. The assessment for all the years has been framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C. It is admitted position that the facts as well as issues are quite identical in all the years and adjudication in any one appeal shall apply to all the other appeals also.

2.

The registry has noted delay of 28 days in the appeals, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR. Considering the fact that the impugned orders were passed during lockdown situation arising of Covid-19 Pandemic, the delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. Having heard rival submissions and after perusal of case records, the appeals are disposed-off as under.

3.

In AY 2012-13, the assessee was assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C on 31.12.2019. The assessment was framed pursuant to search action u/s 132 in the case of one Shri V. Dhivaharan (father of the assessee) on 09.11.2017. Based on search findings, the assessments were framed. The Ld. AO made additions of Rs.25.47 Lacs being cash deposit in the hands of one Shri G. Naveen Rakesh and also added the same on protective basis in the hands of the assessee. It has been submitted by Ld. AR that the appeal against the assessment so framed in the hands of the assessee is already under challenge before first appellate authority. 4. Subsequently, Ld. Pr. CIT, upon perusal of case records, sought revision of the order on the ground that investment in luxury cars made by the assessee was sourced out of cash deposit of Rs.25.47 Lacs in the bank account of Shri G. Naveen Rakesh and the same was erroneously treated as unaccounted income u/s 68 protectively instead of substantively. Accordingly, Ld. AO was directed to make the impugned additions substantively instead of protectively by making denovo assessment. Aggrieved as aforesaid, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. From the facts, it emerges that the revision has been sought only for the reason that the revisional authority consider it fit to make the additions substantively instead of protectively as made by Ld. AO.

However, it could be seen that the additions have already been made protectively and the same are under challenge before first appellate authority whose powers are co-extensive with the powers of AO. In such a case, no prejudice could be said to have been caused to the revenue since the addition has already been made in the hands of the assessee protectively. The reasoning of Ld. Pr. CIT is that the same was to be made substantively. In such a situation, the assessment framed by Ld. AO could not be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the twin conditions i.e., erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue to invoke the provisions of Sec.263 could not be said to have been fulfilled by revisional authority. Accordingly, the impugned order could not be sustained in law. By quashing the same, we allow the appeal of the assessee.

6.

Since the basis of revision in all the other years is quite identical, our adjudication as above shall mutatis mutandis apply to all the other appeals also. Consequently, the impugned orders are quashed in similar manner.

7.

All the appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced on 22nd December, 2022.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →