PCIT Vs Pramod Kumar Tekriwal (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court considered a Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the Calcutta High Court judgment concerning exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court noted that there was a delay of 286 days in filing the SLP and dismissed the petition both on the ground of delay and on merits. Any pending applications were also disposed of.
Read HC Judgment in this case: Calcutta HC: Section 263 Cannot Substitute AO’s Plausible View on GP Addition
The underlying proceedings arose from a Revenue appeal under Section 260A against the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata, for assessment year 2010-11. The Revenue questioned the ITAT’s finding that the revisionary jurisdiction exercised under Section 263 was not in accordance with the facts and evidence on record and that the Assessing Officer had adopted one possible view where, according to the Revenue, only one view was possible under Section 69C.
The Calcutta High Court noted that the Tribunal had examined the issue in detail and considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 [SC]. The Tribunal had recorded that the Assessing Officer made an addition of 2% to the gross profit over and above the gross profit rate of 4.63%, resulting in a total rate of 7.63%. After completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer addressed the PCIT stating that an error had occurred and requested review under Section 263. The Tribunal examined whether the PCIT could adopt such a procedure and held that Section 263 does not permit substitution of one opinion for another.
The Tribunal also recorded factual findings that the assessee had produced necessary purchase and sales details, audited books of accounts and quantity details relating to opening stock, purchases, sales and closing stock. The books were audited by a Chartered Accountant, and no discrepancy was found between the purchases shown by the assessee and the decline in sales. On these facts, the Tribunal concluded that assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 by the PCIT was erroneous. The High Court found no error or perversity in the Tribunal’s order and held that no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arose. It therefore dismissed the Revenue’s appeals and connected applications. The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the Revenue’s SLP on both delay and merits.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
There is delay of 286 days in filing the special leave petition.
The special leave petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on the merits.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
