Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return for AY 2013-14 which was processed accepting the income. Subsequently, the PCIT initiated revision proceedings under Section 263 of the Act, issuing an order on 28.03.2018. The assessee challenged this order before the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal found that the PCIT's order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity for hearing to the assessee and within a very short timeframe after the hearing dates. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and directed a fresh opportunity for hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the PCIT's revisional order under Section 263 was passed in accordance with principles of natural justice, particularly regarding the opportunity of hearing provided to the assessee.
Sections Cited
263, 143(1), 143(2), 143(3), 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA
आदेश /O R D E R
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is filed against the revisional order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 (PCIT), Coimbatore, passed u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2013-14, dated 28.03.2018.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. The revisional order of the PCIT - 2, Coimbatore dated 28.03.2018 in F. No.220(06)/264/Pr.CIT-2/Cbe/2017-18 for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances of the case.
:-2-: ITA. No.: 1528/Chny/2023 2. The PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and further erred in passing the revision order beyond the time limit stipulated under Section 263(2) of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification.
3. The PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and consequently erred in passing the revision order in setting aside the assessment order dated 24.03.2015 based on the findings from paras of the impugned order which according to the appellant were wrong, erroneous findings, consequently vitiating the revision order completely.
4. The PCIT failed to appreciate that the twin conditions prescribed for assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act were not satisfied concurrently on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and hence ought to have appreciated that the order of revision under consideration was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law.
5. The PCIT failed to appreciate that the findings from para 5 of the impugned order were wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law and ought to have appreciated that the distinction between the concept of review and the concept of revision under the Act was completely overlooked and brushed aside in as much as in this regard, ought to have appreciated that the review of the assessment order completed on complete scrutiny would be prohibited within the scope of the powers of revision under Section 263 of the Act.
6. The PCIT failed to appreciate that there was complete scrutiny of facts referred to in the revision order, considering the fact of selection of return of income filed for limited scrutiny proceedings, while passing the assessment order passed by the JAO and hence ought to have appreciated that the decision to direct the JAO to revisit the issue should be reckoned as bad in law.
The PCIT failed to appreciate that the distinction between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry was also overlooked before passing the revision order and ought to have appreciated that there could not be any presumption of lack of enquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer much less inadequate enquiry on the facts and in the circumstances of the case thereby vitiating the revision order.
8. The PCIT failed to appreciate that the decision rendered at para 5 of the impugned order to set aside limited scrutiny assessment order was wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law.
9. The PCIT failed to appreciate that directions issued for making disallowances / additions to the JAO by tying his / her hands, by taking away the powers of completing an assessment should be reckoned as bad in law and ought to have appreciated that the exercise of jurisdiction in :-3-: ITA. No.: 1528/Chny/2023 such circumstances, namely, acting as an Assessing Officer sitting in the revisional jurisdiction after reviewing the decision made in the assessment should consequently considered as nullity in law.
The PCIT failed to appreciate that the failure to grant reasonable time to respond to the show cause notice before completion of the revision order was wholly unjustified and not sustainable in law and ought to have appreciated that any order passed in violation to the principles of Natural Justice should be considered as non-est in law.
The PCIT failed to appreciate that in any event, having not disputed the fact of scope of assessment proceedings being a limited assessment proceedings and further having not disputed the fact of AO embarking upon necessary adjudication leading to the completion of assessment, the interference in the revisional order stretching the scope of powers prescribed thereto by reviewing the assessment order should be considered as nullity in law.
The PCIT failed to appreciate that order of the revision was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law.
The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing.
The brief facts are that, the assessee is an individual and proprietor of M/s.Shri Ram Chamber Bricks, engaged in the business of bricks manufacturing. The assessee had e-filed her return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 27.06.2013. The return of income was processed by CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act by accepting the total income of Rs.7,60,150/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act dated 09.09.2014 was issued. The assessee furnished the details during the assessment proceedings from time to time. The Assessing Officer passed an order u/s.143(3) on 24.03.2015 by adding an amount of Rs.10 lakhs as unexplained amount which was added to the capital gain during the year.
Subsequently, the ld.PCIT has taken up the assessment order for revision and passed an order u/s.263 of the Act on 28.03.2018. Aggrieved by the impugned order
:-4-: ITA. No.: 1528/Chny/2023 of the ld. PCIT, the assessee preferred an appeal before us. The appeal of the assessee was allowed by quashing the order u/s.263 of the Act.
As per the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue vide order dated 03.03.2025, the case was recalled by holding as under:
We heard both the parties and perused the orders. We note that the AO has inadvertently mentioned the date of the order as 24.03.2015 instead of 24.03.2016. This error is evident from the submissions and proceedings held during the assessment which is subsequent to the date mentioned i.e. 24.03.2015. Further, the ld.PCIT in his order also considered the date of order of the AO as 24.03.2015 without considering the actual date ought to have recorded by the AO i.e. 24.03.2016. Therefore, this mistake of date is not as a result of passing of this impugned order of this Tribunal. In fact, we have followed the Ld.PCIT / AO’s order while passing the impugned order and accordingly held that the order passed u/s.263 by the ld.PCIT, as time barred. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to recall the matter and direct the registry to refix the case for fresh hearing.
Before us, the ld.AR submitted that the as seen from the first page of the order u/s.263 of the Act, the ld.PCIT had given dates for hearing on 21.03.2018 and 22.03.2018 to the assessee to explain the sources for huge credit in capital account for the Assessment Year 2013-14. However, the order u/s.263 of the Act by the ld.PCIT was passed within 6 days i.e. on 28.03.2018 by directing the Assessing Officer to make additions of cash credit and disallow certain interest and depreciation apart from issuing notice u/s.148 for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 by holding as under:
To sum up, the Assessing Officer is directed to: (i) add Rs. 2,09,83,000/- as unexplained cash credit, as mentioned in para 5 (ii) add Rs 25,88,240/- as unexplained cash credit, as mentioned in para 6 (iii) add Rs.20,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit, as mentioned in para 7 (iv) disallow propertionate interest on Rs 21,00,000/- as mentioned in para 8 (v) disallow depreciation of Rs.6,75,639/-, as mentioned in para 10
:-5-: ITA. No.: 1528/Chny/2023 (vi) issue notice u/s 148 for Asst. Years 2010-11 and 2011-12, as mentioned in para 11.
Therefore, the ld.AR for prayed for setting aside the order u/s.263 of the Act passed by the ld.PCIT and to provide one more opportunity before the ld.PCIT to present the case in the interest of natural justice.
7. Per contra, the ld.DR argued that the Assessing Officer has already given effect to the order of ld.PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act and apart from that, the assessee has preferred an appeal against such order before the CIT(A). Therefore, there is no need to interfere in the order of the ld.PCIT and prayed for dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
We have heard both the parties, perused material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that the ld.PCIT is of the opinion that the Assessing Officer’s order u/s.143(3) dated 24.03.2016 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue necessitating invoking of provisions of Section 263 of the Act to remedy the loss to the revenue and hence, issued notice for hearing to the assessee on 21.03.2018 and 22.03.2018 continuously 2 days and also passed the order immediately on 28.03.2018 to complete the compliances within the due dates prescribed. We find that the ld.PCIT, to comply with the due dates as per the provisions, passed the order within the due date without providing sufficient opportunity to appear. The order was passed within 6 days from the date of the hearing notice issued to the assessee. Further, we find that the Assessing Officer has given hearing continuous 2 days on 21.03.2018 and 22.03.2018 and concluded the proceedings by passing an order u/s.263 of the Act. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends
:-6-: ITA. No.: 1528/Chny/2023 of justice, we are of the opinion that the assessee needs to be given proper opportunity of hearing before passing the order and hence, we set aside the order u/s.263 of the Act dated 28.03.2018 and direct the ld.PCIT to provide fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass the order in accordance with law. We order accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th June, 2025 at Chennai.