Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Provisions of Section 263 nowhere allows to challenge the judicial wisdom of the AO or to replace the wisdom in the guise of revision, unless theview taken by the AO is not at all sustainable in law.

Extent of enquiry cannot be stretched to any level by forcing the AO to go through the assessment process again and again.

ITA NO. 205/JP2023 AGRANI BUILDESTATE VS PR. CIT-1, JAIPUR 1.14. Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, in the case of Annu Agrotech Private Limited, ITA No. 09/JP/2021, apropos assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 by the Id. PCIT, laid down the following ratio:-

In view of the above factual and legal position, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263. Thus, the entire order by ld.PCIT deserves to be quashed.'' 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. PCIT and also filed the submission alongwith case laws in which main thrust of the case law was on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court dated 11-11-2014 in the case of Keyaram Hotels (P) Ltd. vs DCIT, Circle-II(4), Chennai, 373 ITR 494 and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Keyaram Hotels (P) Ltd. vs DCIT, Circle-II(4), Chennai [2-15] 63 taxmann.com 301(SC). 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that Scope of revision jurisdiction under section 263 is very specific and limited and also different from appellate jurisdiction. Law, contained in section 263, does not allow CIT to impose his view over the judicious view adopted by AO unless the view adopted by AO is established to be not at all sustainable in law. The AO, in the present case, on appreciation of facts, found that assessee firm was receiving the rent from letting out the properties along with other amenities and, accordingly, using his judicial wisdom, taxed the income under the head business and profession. The view of AO was also supported by ITA NO. 205/JP2023 AGRANI BUILDESTATE VS PR. CIT-1, JAIPUR the CBDT Circular wherein also the principle laid down was that "letting out buildings along with other amenities" will fall in income from business. Ld. AO was duty bound to follow the directions of CBDT more so when specifically brought to his notice by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. It may be noted that Explanation to section 44AD defines "eligible assessee" as well as "eligible business". There is no bar, under both the definitions, for the rental income, earned by the assessee firm as business income, to be assessed on presumptive basis under section 44AD. Therefore, once the income is held to be business income applicability of section 44AD is a natural consequence. Attention was drawn of the ld. PCIT, during proceedings under section 263, towards the judgment of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 56 taxmann.com 456 (SC). Ld. PCIT although has not distinguished the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court yet has not followed the same. Similar to Chennai Properties case(Supra) the object as contained in the object clause of the partnership deed of the assessee firm was letting out the properties together with other amenities. The decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Keyaram Hotels (P) ltd. v. Dy. CIT, Co. Circle- II (4), Chennai [373 ITR 494 Madras]has no relevance in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties (Supra). It is also to be noted that judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court was delivered on 11/11/2014 whereas the decision of ITA NO. 205/JP2023 AGRANI BUILDESTATE VS PR. CIT-1, JAIPUR the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chennai Properties was delivered on 09/04/2015. The fact of rejection of assessee's SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order of Keyaram Hotels (Supra)does not merge the decision of the Madras High Court into that of Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP in the following words:

ITA NO. 205/JP2023 AGRANI BUILDESTATE VS PR. CIT-1, JAIPUR

1. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2018) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd.- Trib)

2. Eveready Industries India Ltd.[2020] 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata Trib)

3. M/s. Smira Pune Food Pvt. Ltd (ITA No.3205/DEL/2017, ITAT Delhi Bench.

4. Shri Narayan Tatu Rane, ITA No2690/Mum/2016, ITAT Mumbai Bench In the present case, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for specific purpose for verification of refund claim and income from house property and, therefore, there cannot be any presumption of lack of enquiry more particularly when the detailed questionnaire was issued by the AO during the assessment proceedings and in this regard the assessee had also furnished all the details alongwith decision of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs CIT (supra). Therefore, it cannot be presumed that there was lack of enquiry on the part of the AO. In this regard, we draw strength from the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Lata Phulwani (ITA No. 246/JP/2020). It is a settled law by now that where the AO has exercised the quasi judicial power vested in him in accordance with law and arrived at a conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be considered erroneous simply because the ld. PCIT does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. In this regard, we take into consideration the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Ganpat Ram Vishnoi, 296 ITR 292. Even otherwise, provisions of Section nowhere allow to challenge the judicial wisdom of the AO or to replace the wisdom in the guise of revision unless the view taken by the AO is ITA NO. 205/JP2023 AGRANI BUILDESTATE VS PR. CIT-1, JAIPUR not at all sustainable in law. We are of the view that extent of enquiry cannot be stretched to any level by forcing the AO to go through the assessment process again and again. We have also gone through the decisions of the Coordinate Bench in the cases Annu Agrotech Private Ltd. (ITA No. 9/JP/2021), apropos assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 by the ld. PCIT laid down the following ratio:-