HN Safal Infra Developer Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT Ahmedabad: PCIT’s 263 Revision on 14A Quashed – No Automatic Disallowance; Jurisdictional Safeguards Ignored – Tribunal Sets Aside 263 Order
Background
- PCIT invoked sec.263, revising assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 12.04.2021.
- Grounds: AO failed to make disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D on exempt income of ₹55,978/- earned from LLP/firm investments.
- PCIT held AO’s order “erroneous & prejudicial to Revenue,” directed AO to recompute disallowance.
- Assessee challenged revision, arguing:
Order passed in name of amalgamated (non-existent) entity.
AO had already called for details & applied mind.
PCIT cannot substitute AO’s satisfaction with her own.
Tribunal’s Findings
Jurisdiction under Sec.263:
- AO must first record dissatisfaction u/s 14A(2) with assessee’s claim before invoking Rule 8D.
- Disallowance is not automatic merely because exempt income exists.
- PCIT assumed revisionary jurisdiction ignoring this statutory safeguard.
Ignoring Assessee’s Explanation:
- Assessee had explained that no expenditure was incurred for exempt income (detailed item-wise).
- PCIT did not examine correctness of explanation; she directly directed AO to disallow.
- This was contrary to SC in Maxopp Investment Ltd. and Gujarat HC rulings (CIMS Hospital, GSFC, Gujarat Fluorochemicals).
Error in Law:
- PCIT cannot usurp AO’s role by directing disallowance without examining AO’s satisfaction.
- Revision based on presumption of automatic 14A disallowance is bad in law.
Decision
- ITAT held PCIT’s order unsustainable.
- Entire revision u/s 263 quashed.
- Assessee’s appeal allowed in full.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD





