PRAMUKH REALTY,JUNAGADH vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

आदेश / O R D E R

PER BENCH:

3.1 The assessee in response to such show cause notice vide letter dated 27 January 2022 submitted that service tax is levied even on the payment received in advance whereas the advance payment is not liable to be shown as income in the same year but the same is offered to tax on the completion of the transaction. It was also submitted by the assessee that the service tax is charged on the value of services provided whereas tax is charged on the principle of the accrual/receipt of income. Thus, the difference arising between the amount shown in the service tax return and the financial statement does not reflect income of the assessee.

3.2 However, the learned PCIT was not convinced with the submission of the assessee on the reasoning that the difference as discussed above should have been verified and examined by the AO during the assessment proceedings. Likewise, amount of advance shown by the assessee should have been confirmed/cross verified from the customers and the sales shown by the assessee

- 3 - in the later years. But, the AO has not conducted necessary enquiries. The learned PCIT has also involved the provisions of explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act and held the order of the AO as erroneous insofar prejudicial interest of revenue.

- 4 - with respect to the difference in the figures as discussed above and hence the assessment is erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Thus, requiring revision by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act.

7.1 An inquiry made by the Assessing Officer, considered inadequate by the Commissioner of Income Tax, cannot make the order of the Assessing Officer erroneous. In our view, the order can be erroneous if the Assessing Officer fails to apply the law rightly on the facts of the case. As far as adequacy of inquiry is considered, there is no law which provides the extent of inquiries to be made by the Assessing Officer. It is Assessing Officer’s prerogative to make inquiry to the extent he feels proper. The Commissioner of Income Tax by invoking revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act cannot impose his own understanding of the extent of inquiry. There were a number of judgments by various Hon’ble High Courts in this regard.

7.2 Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto 332 ITR 167 (Del.), made a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. The Hon’ble court held that where the AO has made inquiry prior to the completion of assessment, the same cannot be set aside u/s 263 of the Act on the ground of inadequate inquiry. The relevant observation of Hon’ble Delhi High Court reads as under: “12. ….. There are judgments galore laying down the principle that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is not required to give detailed reason in respect of each and every item of deduction, etc. Therefore, one has to see from the record as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between “lack of inquiry” and “inadequate inquiry”. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of “lack of inquiry”, that such a course of action would be open. ——— From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately. This section does not visualise a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless - 5 - the decision is held to be erroneous. Cases may be visualised where the Income-tax Officer while making an assessment examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and determines the income either by accepting the accounts or by making some estimate himself. The Commissioner, on perusal of the records, may be of the opinion that the estimate made by the officer concerned was on the lower side and left to the Commissioner he would have estimated the income at a figure higher than the one determined by the Income-tax Officer. That would not vest the Commissioner with power to re-examine the accounts and determine the income himself at a higher figure. It is because the Income-tax Officer has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in him in accordance with law and arrived at conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. There must be some prima facie material on record to show that tax which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation a lesser tax than what was just has been imposed.

7.3 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), discussed the law on this aspect in length in the following manner: “The consideration of the Commissioner as to whether an order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, must be based on materials on the record of the proceedings called for by him. If there are no materials on record on the basis of which it can be said that the Commissioner acting in a reasonable manner could have come to such a conclusion, the very initiation of proceedings by him will be illegal and without jurisdiction. The Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to starting fishing and roving enquiries in matters or orders which are already concluded. Such action will be against the well-accepted policy of law that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi- judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity.

7.4 The Mumbai ITAT in the case of Sh. Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO, dt. 06.05.2016 examined the scope of enquiry under Explanation 2(a) to section 263 in the following words:- “20. Further clause (a) of Explanation states that an order shall be deemed to be erroneous, if it has been passed without making enquiries or verification, which should have been made. In our considered view, this provison shall apply, if the order has been passed without making enquiries or verification which a reasonable and prudent officer shall have carried out in such cases, which means that the opinion formed by Ld Pr. CIT

- 6 - cannot be taken as final one, without scrutinising the nature of enquiry or verification carried out by the AO vis-à-vis its reasonableness in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, in our considered view, what is relevant for clause (a) of Explanation 2 to sec. 263 is whether the AO has passed the order after carrying our enquiries or verification, which a reasonable and prudent officer would have carried out or not. It does not authorise or give unfettered powers to the Ld Pr. CIT to revise each and every order, if in his opinion, the same has been passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made. In our view, it is the responsibility of the Ld Pr. CIT to show that the enquiries or verification conducted by the AO was not in accordance with the enquries or verification that would have been carried out by a prudent officer. Hence, in our view, the question as to whether the amendment brought in by way of Explanation 2(a) shall have retrospective or prospective application shall not be relevant.”

7.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 2 v. Shree Gayatri Associates*[2019] 106 taxmann.com 31 (SC), held that where Pr. CIT passed a revised order after making addition to assessee's income under section 69A in respect of on-money receipts, however, said order was set aside by Tribunal holding that AO had made detailed enquiries in respect of such on-money receipts and said view was also confirmed by High Court, SLP filed against decision of High Court was liable to be dismissed. The facts of this case were that pursuant to search proceedings, assessee filed its return declaring certain unaccounted income. The Assessing Officer completed assessment by making addition of said amount to assessee's income. The Principal Commissioner passed a revised order under section 263 on ground that Assessing Officer had failed to carry out proper inquiries with respect to assessee's on money receipt. In appeal, the Tribunal took a view that Assessing Officer had carried out detailed inquiries which included assessee's on-money transactions and Tribunal, thus, set aside the revised order passed by Commissioner. The Hon’ble High Court upheld Tribunal's order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP filed by the Department held as under:- “We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and perused the documents on record. In particular, the Tribunal has in the impugned judgment referred to the detailed correspondence between Assessing Officer and the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings to come to a conclusion that the Assessing Officer had carried out detailed inquiries which includes assessee's on-money transactions. It was on account of these findings that the Tribunal was prompted to reverse the order of revision. No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed”

7.6 The Supreme Court in the another recent case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Meerut v. Canara Bank Securities Ltd[2020] 114 taxmann.com 545 (SC), dismissed the Revenue’s SLP holding that 263 proceedings are invalid when AO had made enquiries and taken a plausible view in law, with the following observations: “Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we see no reason to interfere with the view of the Tribunal. The question whether the income should be taxed as business income or as arising from the other source was a debatable issue. The Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view. More importantly, if the Commissioner was of the opinion that on the available facts from record it could be conclusively held that income arose from other sources, he could and ought to have so held in the order of revision. There was simply no necessity to remand the proceedings to the Assessing Officer when no further inquiries were called for or directed”

7.7 From an analysis of the above judicial precedents, the principle which emerges is that 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 prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when an Assessing Officer adopts one of the course permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner of Income-tax does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order causing prejudice to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law, or the AO has completely omitted to make any enquiry altogether or the order demonstrates non-application of mind.

7.8 Now in the facts before us, in the case of the assessee the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, made enquiries on this issue and after consideration of written submissions filed by the assessee and documents / evidence placed on record, framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act without making the addition of the amount as note above. This fact can be - 8 - verified from the notice under section 142(1) of the Act by the AO and submission in reply of the assessee against such notice. i. Notice dated 06-08-2019: Furnish details of Building Booking Advance Deposits along with supporting documentary evidences. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Furnish details of party-wise sales in prescribed format. PAN, Address and Aggregate amount Stamp Duty paid Mode of receipt name of person to whom sale is made.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Furnish copy of service tax return for the FY 2016-17 and reconcile the same with ledger of sales turnover in books of accounts. ii. Reply dated 14-08-2019 Booking Deposits: During the year under consideration we have received booking amount from our customers, Details regarding amount received from customers along with full address of customers are attached herewith. Page No.161 to 189 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Details of Sales During the year under consideration, we have sold constructed units, Copies of Sales Ledger are attached herewith. Details chart regarding i.e Flat Number, Area of Flat, sale Deed Number etc. for sales are attached herewith. Party wise copy of Ledger accounts are also attached herewith. Page No.262to 300. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Service Tax Return; Copies of Service Tax Returns for F.Y. 2016-17 are attached herewith. Page No.368 to 409 7.9 From the above it is revealed that it is not the case that the AO has not made any enquiry. Indeed the Pr. CIT initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the AO has not made enquiries or verification which should have been made in respect of cash deposited during the demonization period. It is not the case of the Pr. CIT that the Ld. AO did not apply his mind to the issue on hand or he had omitted to make enquiries altogether. In the instant set of facts, the AO had made enquiries and after consideration of materials placed on record accepted the genuineness of the claim of the assessee.

7.10 At this juncture, it is also important to note that the learned PCIT in his order passed under section 263 of the Act has made reference to the explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act. It was attempted by the learned PCIT to hold that there were certain necessary enquiries which should have been made by the AO during the assessment proceedings but not conducted by him. Therefore, on this reasoning the order of the AO is also erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this regard, we make our observation that the learned PCIT has also not specified the nature and the manner in which the enquiries which should have been conducted by the AO in the assessment proceedings. Thus, in the absence of any specific finding of the learned PCIT with respect to the enquiries which should have been made, we are not convinced by his order passed under section 263 of the Act.

7.11 At this juncture, it is also important to note that there is a difference between the value of the services provided by the assessee which are subject to the provisions of service tax viz a viz the income which has to be accounted for the purpose of income tax. As such the advance received by the assessee cannot be categorised as income under the provisions of Income Tax Act whereas the services rendered by the assessee even with respect to the advances received are subject to service tax. Therefore, merely these amounts are not matching, no inference again the assessee can be drawn. Furthermore, all the details with respect to the service tax were available before the AO during the assessment proceedings. Thus it cannot be said that there was no application of mind of the AO in the given facts and circumstances. There was a specific question raised by the AO which was duly answered by the assessee as evident from the details furnished in the preceding paragraph.

7.12 In view of the above and after considering the facts in totality, we hold that there is no error in the assessment framed by the AO under section 143(3)

10 - causing prejudice to the interest of revenue. Thus, the revisional order passed by the learned PCIT is not sustainable and therefore we quash the same. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.