Case Law Details
Sujit Kumar Dey Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)
The assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by ld. PCIT has been challenged before us by the assessee. Before we advert to the facts and law involved in this issue before us, let us revisit the law governing the issue before us. The assessee has challenged in the first place, the very usurpation of jurisdiction by ld. PCIT to invoke his revisional powers enjoyed u/s 263 of the Act. Therefore, first we have to see whether the requisite jurisdiction necessary to assume revisional jurisdiction is existing in this case before the PCIT rightfully exercises his revisional power. For that, we have to examine as to whether in the first place the order of the Assessing Officer found fault by the Principal CIT is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. For that, let us take the guidance of judicial precedence laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC) wherein their Lordship have held that twin conditions need to be satisfied before exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT. The twin conditions are that the order of the ld. AO must be erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In the following circumstances, the order of the ld. AO can be held to be erroneous order, that is (i) if the ld. AO’s order was passed on incorrect assumption of fact; or (ii) incorrect application of law; or (iii) Ld. AO’s order is in violation of the principle of natural justice; or (iv) if the order is passed by the ld. AO without application of mind; (v) if the AO has not investigated the issue before him; [because AO has to discharge dual role of an investigator as well as that of an adjudicator] then in aforesaid any event the order passed by the ld. AO can be termed as erroneous order. Coming next to the second limb, which is required to be examined as to whether the actions of the ld. AO can be termed as prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. When this aspect is examined, one has to understand what is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries (supra) held that this phrase i.e. “prejudicial to the interests of the revenue” has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the ld. AO. Their Lordship held that it has to be remembered that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of ld. AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. When the ld. AO adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss to the revenue, or where two views are possible and the ld. AO has taken one view with which the ld. PCIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue “unless the view taken by the ld. AO is unsustainable in law”.
Under these given facts and circumstances of the case where the issue raised in the show cause notice has been examined properly by the ld. AO after conducting necessary enquiry and has also examined the facts properly their hardly remains any scope for ld. PCIT to exercise jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Therefore, since the ld. AO has made necessary enquiry, applied his mind on the issue, examined the facts properly and has taken a possible view, we cannot agree with the finding of the ld. PCIT of setting aside the assessment order. Accordingly, the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act are quashed and the assessment order dated 24.12.2018 u/s 143(3) of the Act is restored.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2016-17 is directed against the order of ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-5, Kolkata [in short ld. “PCIT”] U/s 263 of the Act dated 18.03.2021.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
