Back
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
Kavitha Rajagopal, JM, Girish Agarwal, AM
Assessee – Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) – Respondent
ITA No.2564/Mum/2023
Important Points
Subject
Taxation - Income Tax
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Revisionary Powers - The court held that if the reassessment is found to be invalid, the subsequent order passed u/s. 263 is likewise invalid and lacks jurisdiction. (Paras 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
The assessee, engaged in transportation, faced reassessment after declaring an income that was later found to have inconsistencies. The original assessment took place in 2014, with subsequent reassessment based on issues that were argued as beyond the four-year limit without valid grounds for reopening.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that no suppression of facts justifying the reassessment existed and invalidated the revisionary order u/s. 263.
Issues: Whether the reassessment notice was valid and within the time limits set by the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court stated that after an assessment has been concluded, without tangible evidence of wrongdoing or failure to disclose necessary facts, reopening after four years is impermissible.
Result: The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri. Satish R. Mody
For the Respondents: Shri. Tushar Mohite Sr. AR
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessment processed with original income declarations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments against the validity of reassessment and its initiation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's analysis on reassessment validity and consequences. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. final ruling of the appeal. (Para 13) |
ORDER
PER KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, J M:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (‘ld. PCIT) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), dated 09.03.2022 relevant to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2012-13.
2. It is observed that this appeal had been filed belatedly with the delay of 460 days for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of the said delay along with an affidavit. Upon perusal of the said and after hearing both sides we deem it fit to condone the delay on the ground that there was ‘sufficient cause’ for the said delay. Delay condoned.
3. The assessee has challenged this appeal on the following grounds of appeal:
1. “ The Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,PCIT,Mumbai-3 erred in passing the order u/s. 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2012-13 Dated 09-03-2012 directing the Income-tax Officer to pass the order u/s. 143(3) / 144 read with Sec. 147 ,263 and 144B of the Act, considering the entire payments made for business purposes as not allowable deduction against Income, the order passed by the then Income-tax Officer being neither erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue .
2. The Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,PCIT,Mumbai-3 has erred in directing the Income-tax Officer to pass the order u/s. 147 r.w.s 263 of the Act when such order cannot be passed as the time for passing the order u/s. 147 was beyond time limit prescribed under the provisions of the Act
3. The Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,PCIT,Mumbai-3 erred in exercising his powers u/s. 263 of the Act as the order dated 12/12/2019 was subject matter of appeal which was pending before CIT(A) as on date of passing of Order u/s.263 of The I T Act Dated 09-03-2022.
4. The Appellant reserves right to add, amend, alter the above grounds of appeal as and when found necessary.”
4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of transport of vehicle in trailer trucks. During the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs. 3,87,21,060/- and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The learned Assessing Officer ('ld. A.O.' for short) observed that the assessee has credited Rs. 82,55,90,497/- in its P & L Account towards transportation, enroute, interest, dividend, etc. and after debiting various expenses, operating cost, employing benefits, finance cost, the assessee had returned the total income at Rs. 3.87 crore. The ld. AO passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 03.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs. 3,91,95,479/- after making certain additions/disallowances. The assessee’s case was subsequently reopened vide notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2019 for the reason that the assessee had received payment from customers through banking channel and the same was withdrawn through self paid cheques for making payment to convoy in-charge at the time of allotment of vehicles by way of cash. The ld. AO further stated that the vouchers produced by the assessee are self made without any corresponding verification from the person to whom payments have been made and also no proof of payment of Octroi charges/Toll taxes paid during the transportation of vehicles, thereby, holding that income has escaped the assessment. The ld. AO has sought for information from the assessee that the total receipt was Rs. 157,53,54,063/- whereas in the I
