Delhi High Court
Pr.Commissioner Of Income … vs Delhi Gurgaon Super Connectivity Ltd on 13 May, 2025
Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, Swarana Kanta Sharma
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 13.05.2025
+ ITA 424/2022
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(CENTRAL) - 2 .....Appellant
versus
M/S. DELHI GURGAON SUPER CONNECTIVITY
LTD. .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev
Menon and Mr. Rahul Singh, JSCs.
For the Respondent : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal and
Mr. Dushyant Agarwal, Advocates
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
1. The Revenue has preferred the present appeal under Section
260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereafter ‗the Act’] impugning
an order dated 13.10.2020 [hereafter ‗the impugned order’] passed
by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [hereafter ‗the learned
ITAT’], in ITA No. 4712/Del/2019, in respect of the assessment year
(AY) 2014-15, whereby the appeal of the respondent herein i.e. M/s
Delhi Gurgaon Super Connectivity Limited [hereafter ‗the assessee’]
was allowed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 1 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The records of the case reveal that the assessee is a company
engaged in the business of maintaining toll plaza and collecting toll.
An agreement had been entered into between the assessee and the
National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) on 18.04.2002 for
conversion of Delhi Gurgaon Section of National Highway-08 into an
access controlled 8/6 lane highway.
3. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny by the Revenue
for the AY 2014-15 and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was
issued to the assessee on 23.09.2015 by the learned Assessing Officer
i.e, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-14, New
Delhi [hereafter ‗the AO’]. In response, the assessee submitted a
representation seeking adjournment. Thereafter, notices under
Section 141(2) of the Act were issued to the assessee on 20.10.2015,
10.05.2016 and 04.07.2016.
4. However, since the assessee neither attended the hearings nor
submitted any document in response to the aforesaid notices, and also
did not file its return of income, a notice dated 10.08.2016 under
Section 274 read with 271 of the Act was issued to the assessee to
show cause as to why an order imposing a penalty on the assessee be
not passed under Section 271 of the Act. Since the assessee failed to
attend the proceedings before the AO on any occasion, an order
under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act was passed on 01.09.2016, by
way of which a penalty of ₹10,000/- was imposed on the assessee.
Accordingly, a Notice of Demand of ₹10,000/-, under Section 156 of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 2 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
the Act, was issued to the assessee. Thereafter, a notice dated
23.09.2016 under Section 276D of the Act was issued to the assessee
to show cause as to why the prosecution proceedings under Section
276D of the Act be not initiated. In response to the same, a reply was
submitted on behalf of the assessee, wherein it was stated that since
all the details called for were under preparation, more time was
sought to furnish the requisite details. Further, the Authorized
Representative (AR) of the assessee attended the proceedings on
29.09.2016 and sought extension of time on the grounds of
unavailability of document/records. Thereafter, two notices dated
16.11.2016 and 06.12.2016 were issued under Section 144 of the Act
giving an opportunity to the assessee to comply with the assessment
proceedings by 24.11.2016 and 12.12.2016 respectively, and it was
clarified that failure to do so would lead to completion of proceedings
ex-parte on the basis of material and facts available on record.
5. On 29.12.2016, the assessee filed its return of income for AY
2014-15, declaring income of ₹Nil, as well its replies to notices
issued by the Revenue, including the list of sundry creditors above
₹1,00,000/-. On the same day, a notice was issued under Section
143(2) of the Act requesting the assessee to attend the proceedings on
30.12.2016 since some further information was required. On
30.12.2016, the assessee submitted certain information as to why the
expenses incurred towards the operation and maintenance of the toll
had increased.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 3 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
Assessment Order
6. The assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was
passed by the AO on 31.12.2016.
7. The AO, after examining the profit and loss account of the
assessee, noted that during the relevant AY, the revenue of the
assessee had declined, compared to the last AY, from ₹192.2 crores
to ₹149.1 crores. It was also observed by the AO that there was an
increase of various expenses as compared to last AY, under the heads
of – project running expenses, electricity and fuel expenses,
administration and office expenses, printing and stationery expenses,
postage and stamps, vehicle running and maintenance expenses. The
AO further noted that it was apparent that the expenditure claimed by
the assessee was not only for business purposes, and further that the
assessee had not substantiated the expenses on the basis of proper
documents. Resultantly, the AO disallowed 20% of the expenses
under each of the six heads, and made a total addition of
₹2,40,83,797/-. Accordingly, the assessment was framed by the AO,
computing a total loss of ₹2,35,36,058/- against the loss of
₹4,76,19,855/- returned by the assessee. The relevant portion of the
assessment order is set out below:
―… 2) During the course of Assessment Proceedings, it is
observed from Profit & Loss Account and on perusal of details
submitted, that during the year revenue from operation has
declined compared to last year from Rs. 192.2 cr to Rs. 149.1 cr.
From the perusal of P&L A/C of the assessee there is an
increase of some expenses as compare to last year under the
heads of project running expense, Electricity and Fuel Expense.
Administration and office expense, printing and stationery
expense, postage and stamp, vehicle running and maintenanceSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 4 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
expense. The expenditure so claimed by the assessee doesn’t
appear to have claimed wholly for business purpose. Further,
assessee has also not substantiated these expenses with proper
documents. The detail is mentioned below:
S. Nature of Expenditure Expenditure Disallowance
No expenditure claimed in claimed in
F.Y 2012-13 F.Y 2013-14
1. Project running 32,994 1,77,88,767/- 35,57,753/-
expense
2. Electricity and 11,00,988/- 4,17,12,062/- 83,42,412/-
Fuel Expense
3. Administration 30,96,938/- 4,77,74,064/- 95,54,812/-
and office
expense
4. Printing and 7,32,611/- 75,78,527/- 15,15,705/-
stationery
5. Postage and 43,221/- 22,63,203/- 4,52,640/-
stamp
6. Vehicle running 12,92,447/- 33,02,375/- 6,60,475/-
and maintenance
expense
Keeping in view the credentials of the business and continuity of
business the 20% of the expenses are disallowed u/s 37 of the IT
Act, 1961 as general expenditure. The additions are here as
under.
Project running expense: (addition of Rs. 35,57,753/-)
Electricity and Fuel Expense: (addition of Rs. 83,42,412/-)
Administration and office expense (addition of Rs. 95,54,812/-)
Printing and stationery (addition of Rs. 15,15,705/-)
Postage and stamp (addition of Rs. 4,52,640/-)
Vehicle running and maintenance expense (addition of Rs.
6,60,475/-)
Total addition: Rs.2,40,83,797/-
***
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 5 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
Accordingly, the income of the assessee is assessed at NIL. The
order is passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961….‖
Proposal for Action under Section 263 of the Act
8. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-14,
New Delhi [hereafter ‗the DCIT’] took cognizance of the assessment
order dated 31.12.2016 passed by the AO, vide which the AO had
framed the assessment at a loss of ₹2,35,36,058/-, and the assessee
had claimed a refund of ₹44,69,200/-. The DCIT noted that as per
balance sheet for the relevant AY, the assessee had shown an amount
of ₹51,44,53,415/- as sundry creditors. Out of the 70 entries in this
regard, the DCIT had verified one entry of ₹4,65,86,911/-, pertaining
to one sundry creditor namely M/s. EGIS Infra Management India
Pvt. Ltd. [hereafter ‗EGIS Infra’] as the financial records of the said
company were available with the DCIT, and had found no such debit
or asset entry in the balance sheet of the said company. Thus, it
appeared that the said entry was bogus and the assessee had allegedly
introduced unaccounted cash into its books of accounts by
misrepresenting it as sundry creditors. The DCIT opined that the
other sundry creditors shown by the assessee may also be bogus.
Given the cash-intensive nature of the assessee’s toll collection
business, it was suspected that unaccounted cash was being disguised
as sundry creditors. Thus, it was opined that the order passed by the
AO was erroneous, due to the assessee’s tactic of submitting
documents just three days before the time-barring date, preventing
proper verification, and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. The
DCIT also observed that similar discrepancies were observed in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 6 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
previous year i.e. AY 2013-14, where sundry creditors listed in the
balance sheet of the assessee did not match from the balance sheet of
EGIS Infra. In view of the same, the DCIT sent a proposal dated
19.04.2018 for action under Section 263 of the Act to the Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2, New Delhi [hereafter ‗the
PCIT’], for setting aside the order passed by the AO for AY 2014-15.
The Order of PCIT
9. The PCIT, on 28.01.2019, issued a notice to the assessee to
show cause as to why action under Section 263 of the Act be not
taken against it since from a perusal of records, it appeared that the
AO’s order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue.
The ground on which the show cause notice was issued is set out
below:
―…On perusal of the assessment record it is found that as per
balance sheet the assessee has shown an amount of Rs.
51,44,53,415/- as the sundry creditors. Out of total 70 entities
in list of sundry creditors, only one entry of Rs. 4,65,86,911/-
was verified and which was found bogus, Such full
verification was required of sundry creditors because
assessee’s business income was from collection of road toll
which was cash generating business and there is generally no
reason/scope for increase/accumulated of sundry creditors.
However, the total amount of sundry creditors was not
verified by the AO. Thus, this clearly indicate that the order
passed by the AO was erroneous so as to cause prejudice to
the Revenue’s interest because requisite enquiries and
investigation have not been carried out by the A.O…‖
10. Before the PCIT, it was the assessee’s case that during the
assessment proceedings, it had furnished all the information called
for by the AO, including the details of creditors, and the same were
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 7 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
duly verified by the AO and no further inquiries were raised;
therefore, the order passed by the AO was neither erroneous nor
prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. However, the PCIT, by way
of order dated 29.03.2019 passed under Section 263 of the Act, held
that the genuineness of the transactions pertaining to the sundry
creditors was not verified by the AO. The assessment order was thus
set aside by the PCIT, and the AO was directed to frame the
assessment afresh, after making proper enquiries and verification of
transactions amounting to ₹51,44,53,415/- on account of sundry
creditors. The relevant extract from the said order are reproduced
below:
―4. I have perused the assessment records and submissions
made by the assessee in this case. The core issue in this
revision proceedings u/s 263 of the income tax act, 1961 is
that assessment on the issues raised in the show cause notice
was made without proper examination/verification or all the
relevant rules have not been properly applied. In this case, it
is found that the assessee has shown an amount of
Rs.514,453,415/- as sundry creditors in his balance-sheet.
During the assessment proceedings the assessee submitted the
list of creditors on 29.12.2016 to which the AO did not have
sufficient time for requisite enquiry/ investigation of these
transactions and whatever was claimed by the assessee, was
allowed without verifying the genuineness of transactions.
The assessee filed a list of creditors only during the revisional
proceedings u/s 263. However confirmation of parties or
copies of the Ledger account of the sundry creditors was not
provided by the assessee. Therefore, the genuineness and
creditworthiness of sundry creditors could not be verified
even during the proceedings u/s 263 of the income tax act.
5. I, thus, hold that the assessment order passed in the case of
assessee by the Assessing Officer, Central – 14, New Delhi
on 31/12/2016 u/s 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the
interest of revenue. Hence, the AO is directed to examine the
genuineness of transactions of amount to Rs. 514,453,415/-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 8 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
on account of sundry creditors and also conduct proper
enquiries and investigation to the above issue in this case.
6. Thus, the said assessment is set aside and the assessment
proceedings are restored back to the file of the assessing
officer on the aforesaid issues. The AO is directed to frame
the assessment afresh as per the provisions of the income tax
act as directed above, after affording the assessee reasonable
opportunity of being heard and after making proper enquiries
and verification…‖
Fresh Assessment Order
11. Pursuant to the order of PCIT, fresh assessment was made and
order dated 22.12.2019 under Section 144 read with Section 263 of
the Act was passed by the AO. The AO noted that notices under
Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee,
requesting it to furnish details such as the names, PAN particulars,
and addresses of the creditors, along with the nature of transactions.
However, despite repeated notices and reminders, including a show-
cause notice under Section 142(1) of the Act cautioning the assessee
about an ex-parte assessment, the assessee failed to provide any
substantive response or documentation. The assessee had sought an
adjournment citing technical issues on the income tax portal, which
was granted, but yet it did not submit the required details. The AO
observed that the assessee’s non-compliance and failure to furnish the
information sought by him had rendered the verification of creditors
impossible. This led the AO to conclude that the amount in question
constituted unaccounted income introduced under the guise of sundry
creditors.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 9 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
12. Consequently, the AO treated the entire amount of
₹51,44,53,415/- as unaccounted money from undisclosed sources and
finalized the assessment under Section 144 of the Act, by adding the
said amount to the income of the assessee. The assessee’s income
was thus computed at ₹49,09,17,357/-.
The Impugned Order
13. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned ITAT (ITA
No. 4712/Del/2019), assailing the order of the PCIT. It was the
assessee’s case that the PCIT had issued the show cause notice on the
incorrect premise that out of total creditors of ₹51,44,53,415/-, one
entry of ₹4,65,86,911/- was verified and found to be bogus. It was
contended that no such addition was made by the AO in the
assessment order, nor is there any reference to a sundry creditor
being found to be bogus.
14. The learned ITAT, in the impugned order dated 13.10.2020,
observed that the PCIT’s observations regarding one sundry creditor
being found bogus was without any basis, inasmuch as no such
finding was given by the AO in the assessment order and no evidence
in this regard was shown by the PCIT in its own order passed under
Section 263 of the Act. The learned ITAT, rather observed that the
AO did not make any additions on account of any bogus creditor
found during the course of assessment but he rather disallowed the
20% of the total expenditure under Section 37 of the Act, based on
statistical analysis, and thus, the assessment order was neither
erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It was also
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 10 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
observed that the AO could have used its powers to conduct further
inquiries during the assessment, but he instead opted for
proportionate disallowance of expenditure. The learned ITAT further
expressed that invoking Section 263 of the Act and directing
verification of the transactions amounted to extending time for
completion of assessment, which would contravene statutory
timelines under Section 153 of the Act. The learned ITAT, thus,
quashed the order of the PCIT and allowed the assessee’s appeal. The
relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:
―…We have carefully considered the rival contentions and
perused the order of the learned assessing officer which was
held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the
revenue by the order of the learned CIT. Firstly coming to the
reason for invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the income tax
act the learned CIT has stated that as per the balance-sheet the
assessee has shown a sundry creditors of Rs. 514,453,415
comprising of total 70 entities and only one entity of Rs.
465,86,911/- was verified and which was found to be bogus
and therefore for verification was required of sundry creditors.
On careful reading of the assessment order we do not find that
the learned assessing officer could find that one entity
comprising of Rs. 4,65,86,911 was bogus. No evidence were
also led by CIT in her order to show that. Ld. CIT DR also
could not show us basis of holding so by the CIT. Thus, there
is no material on record which shows that any such creditor is
found bogus. Therefore, it is a wrong fact or a fact which is
not borne out from the evidence was recorded by the learned
CIT for invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the act.
9. In fact, as per the assessment order the learned assessing
officer has not made any addition on account of any bogus
creditor found during the course of assessment proceedings.
In fact the learned assessing officer on verification of the
details of the expenditure and on the basis of its statistical
analysis found that assessee has incurred higher expenditure
during the year therefore he disallowed 20% of the expenses
u/s 37 of the act keeping in view the credentials of the
business and continuation of the business. In fact the creditors
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 11 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
have arisen out of the expenditure booked by the assessee
which remains unpaid. Therefore, two options were available
with the assessing officer, (1) either to disallow the
expenditure, (2) or to make an addition on account of
unsubstantiated creditors. If the assessing officer would have
made the addition of the creditors holding those
unsubstantiated , it would result into a consequence that he
allows the expenditure incurred by the assessee holding them
to be wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of the
business and the creditors being source of those unpaid
expenditure would have been held to be unsubstantiated. In
those circumstances the order of the assessing officer would
have become unsustainable in law. This for the reason that the
expenditure incurred by the assessee were allowed and
subsequently creditors resulting out of booking of those
expenditure are added to the total income of the assessee.
Therefore, the assessing officer took the first recourse
available of disallowing the proportionate expenditure, which
is according to us the one of the two options available with the
assessing officer. By disallowing the expenditure to the extent
of 20%, in fact he has held that the sundry creditors to the
extent of that 20% i.e. 24,083,797/- are not related to the
business and are· unsubstantiated. The order of Ld CIT thus,
did not show how the order passed by the Id AO is erroneous.
10. Further, the learned CIT held that the order is erroneous
and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the reason
that the assessee submitted the list of creditors on 29/12/2016
due to which the AO did not have sufficient time for requisite
enquiry. According to us, if the assessee is found lacking in
provision of the details to the assessing officer, the learned
assessing officer could have used vast powers bestowed upon
him by the act to make the best judgment assessment. But the
assessing officer took a view to disallow 20% of the
expenditure. Thus merely non availability of time to the
assessing officer to make adequate enquiry or proper enquiry
cannot be rectified by invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the
income tax act and then granting further time to the assessing
officer to make further enquiry and decide the issue afresh is
not permissible according to the law. If this is held to be
permissible then it would amount to extension of further time
limit provided u/s 153 of the income tax act to complete the
assessment. Thereby any assessment order passed by the
learned assessing officer could further be tinkered with the
provisions of Section 263 of the income tax act by the CIT
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 12 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
and then a further time is granted to the assessing officer to
make further inquiries. That is not the mandate of the law.
The mandate of the law is to rectify an order if it is found to
be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s
263 of the act. But here an alternative bypass route is devised
by revenue to give further time to the assessing officer to
complete the assessment order by making further enquiry. In
the original assessment proceedings, AO was not precluded to
make addition of the whole of the creditors or disallow the
whole of the expenditure, if the details were not forthcoming
from the assessee. But when the details are filed by assessee,
because of the lack of time available with the assessing
officer, provisions of Section 263 cannot be invoked. For this
reasons the order of CIT cannot be sustained.
11. Even otherwise in the order passed by the learned CIT
there is no inclination or finding that how the creditors are
unsubstantiated. Even one creditor of Rs.4,6586911/-
allegedly held to be bogus by the learned CIT, we do not find
any mention in the order of the assessing officer or in the
order of the CIT. There is no basis for such a finding. Further
when the complete expenditure has been allowed by the
learned assessing officer to the extent of 80% of those
expenditure as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively
for the purposes of the business there is no question to further
examine the genuineness and creditworthiness of such
creditors when such creditors emerge from these expenditure
only. The creditors were not the loans received by the
assessee but are part of unpaid expenditure. Thus the reason
given for resuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the act to verify the
genuineness and creditworthiness of the sundry creditors is
also not correct. There is no provision in the act that unpaid
expenditure is also to be tested on the parameter of
creditworthiness. Therefore even in the assessment order the
ld AO did not commit any error of law.
12. While deciding this appeal we have considered and
applied the ratio laid down by various judicial precedents
cited before us.
13. In view of this, the order passed by the learned and CIT
u/s 263 of the act is not sustainable. In the result order of the
learned CIT passed u/s 263 of the act for the impugned
assessment year is quashed.
14. Resultantly, Appeal of the assessee is allowed…‖
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 13 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
15. Aggrieved by the order of the learned ITAT, the Revenue has
preferred the present appeal.
QUESTIONS OF LAW
16. On 21.03.2024, the following questions of law were framed by
this Court:
―A. Whether the ITAT has erred in law to hold that the
assessment order passed by the AO was not erroneous
and that the exercise of power under Section 263 of the
Act by the CIT was not justified even through the AO
passed the assessment order without making inquiries or
verification which should have been made in the facts
and circumstances of the present ease?
B. Whether the ITAT has erred in law to hold that
exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act cannot
be extended to direct the AO to verify the genuineness of
the transactions if in the opinion of the CIT the non-
verification of the genuineness of the transaction is
found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of
the revenue?‖SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT
Submissions on Behalf of the Revenue
17. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue argued that the
impugned order interferes with the revisionary powers under Section
263 of the Act conferred upon the PCIT for the purpose of revision of
orders passed by the AO which are erroneous insofar as they are
prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The emphasis was laid on
the Explanation 2(a) and (b) of Section 263 of the Act and it was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 14 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
argued that an order passed by the AO, as per these sections, shall be
deemed to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of
the Revenue if in the opinion of the PCIT, the order is (a) passed
without making an enquiry which should have been made, or (b)
passed allowing any relief without enquiring into the claim.
18. It was argued on behalf of the Revenue that in the present case,
it is an admitted fact that out of the total sundry creditors of
₹51,44,53,415/-, only one entry of ₹4,65,86,911/- was verified and
the same was found to be bogus, which was a sufficient reason for
the PCIT to exercise its powers under Section 263 of the Act.
Further, the assessee had filed the list of sundry creditors on
29.12.2016 i.e. two days before the time barring date to complete the
assessment i.e. 31.12.2019, and even this list did not contain the PAN
number and addresses of the creditors. Therefore, the ingredients of
Explanation 2(a) and (b) of Section 263 of the Act were clearly
attracted.
19. It is contended that it is evident that there was no proper
verification of the sundry creditors by the AO, and the learned ITAT
erred in supplementing/substituting its own reasoning while
examining the correctness of the order passed under Section 263 of
the Act, particularly when the AO himself had not provided any
reasoning in the original assessment order. It is a well-settled
principle of law that the AO is obligated to conduct a thorough
inquiry and place on record sufficient material to substantiate its
findings. This material should be such that a rational and informed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 15 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
individual, familiar with the nuances of tax laws, would find it
convincing upon due consideration. It is contended that failure to do
so amounts to a case of lack of inquiry, rather than merely an
inadequate inquiry.
20. In support of its contentions, the learned counsel placed
reliance on the following decisions: (i) Commissioner of Income
Tax, Mumbai v. Amitabh Bachchan: (2016) 11 SCC 748; and (ii)
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-II v. Shri Braham Dev Gupta:
(2018) SCC OnLine Del 9946.
Submissions on Behalf of the Assessee
21. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee contended that
the show-cause notice issued by the PCIT was premised on incorrect
facts since the notice erroneously claimed that out of the total sundry
creditors amounting to ₹51,44,53,415/-, a specific entry of
₹4,65,86,911/- had been verified and found to be bogus. However,
this allegation neither finds any mention in the assessment order nor
is it supported by any evidence. It was argued that the AO did not
make any addition or observation to suggest that this creditor was
bogus. Further, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had
provided comprehensive details regarding the expenses incurred by it
during the relevant AY and the sundry creditors. These expenses
were duly scrutinized by the AO, who, after comparing the increase
in expenditure with the increase in revenue, had disallowed a certain
percentage of the expenses.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 16 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
22. It was argued that the assessee had submitted a detailed list of
sundry creditors which exceeded ₹1,00,000/-, along with supporting
documents such as agreements and financial records. Specific details,
including an agreement with EGIS Infra for toll operations and
maintenance, were also furnished to substantiate the creditors.
Despite the AO being satisfied with these details, the PCIT initiated
proceedings under Section 263 of the Act, without there being any
material evidence to support the claim that one creditor was found to
be bogus.
23. The learned counsel submitted that the PCIT’s observations,
that the AO lacked sufficient time to conduct a thorough inquiry,
were flawed. It was argued that if the AO required more time, he
could have resorted to wide powers available under the Act.
However, the AO chose to disallow 20% of the expenditure, which
was within his jurisdiction and based on reasoned judgment. It was
contended that Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked to extend
statutory time limits or to re-examine matters already verified during
assessment, or to direct the AO to verify the genuineness of
transactions. Further, the PCIT failed to demonstrate any specific
error in the AO’s order, or establish how it was erroneous and
prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Therefore, it was prayed
that the present appeal be dismissed, and the questions of law be
answered in the favour of assessee.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 17 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
24. The issue before us is whether the learned ITAT erred in
holding that the PCIT in this case was not justified in invoking
Section 263 of the Act and setting aside the order passed by the AO.
25. Section 263 of the Act, as it reads on date, including
Explanation 2 inserted by virtue of Finance Act, 2015, is extracted
hereunder:
―263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue.
(1) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner
or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and
examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he
considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing
Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, is
erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the
revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of
being heard and after making or causing to be made such
inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the
circumstances of the case justify, including,–
(i) an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or
cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh
assessment; or
(ii) an order modifying the order under section 92CA; or
(iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and
directing a fresh order under the said section.
***
Explanation 2. — For the purposes of this section, it is hereby
declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer or
the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall be
deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the
interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal
Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal
Commissioner or Commissioner, —
(a) the order is passed without making inquiries or
verification which should have been made;
(b) the order is passed allowing any relief without
inquiring into the claim;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 18 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
(c) the order has not been made in accordance with any
order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under
section 119; or
(d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any
decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by
the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case
of the assessee or any other person.‖
(Emphasis added)
26. Section 263 of the Act empowers the PCIT to revise an order
passed by the AO, if such order is both erroneous and prejudicial to
the interests of the Revenue. These two conditions are cumulative,
meaning thereby that the power under this provision can only be
exercised when the assessment order suffers from both defects
enlisted above. Further, Explanation 2(a) to Section 263 of the Act
specifically clarifies that an assessment order shall be deemed
erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue if it is passed
without making necessary inquiries or verification that ought to have
been conducted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
27. However, before proceeding further, we also deem it
appropriate to clarify that even though the AY under consideration is
2014-15 and Explanation 2 was added in Section 263 of the Act with
effect from 01.06.2015, neither any question of applicability of
Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the Act, to the present case, was
raised before this Court, nor we intend to delve into the said question.
28. Undisputedly, Section 263 of the Act, even prior to the said
amendment, mandated that the order must be both ‗erroneous’ and
‗prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue’ for the jurisdiction to be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 19 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
assumed. This clearly indicates that the twin conditions must be
satisfied for invoking Section 263 of the Act, requiring the PCIT to
form an opinion that the order passed by the AO is both ‗erroneous’
and ‗prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.’
29. Further, even prior to the amendment, though it was not
specifically explained in the Act as to how the PCIT will reach a
conclusion that the AO had passed an ‗erroneous’ order which was
also ‗prejudicial to interests of the Revenue’, the scope of these
terms was clarified through various decisions by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and Coordinate Benches of this Court. It would be
pertinent to refer to a few of these decisions.
30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of Malabar Industrial
Co. Ltd v. CIT: (2000) 243 ITR 83 held that an order passed by an
assessing officer can be deemed erroneous if it is based on incorrect
assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law, and also if it is
passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without
application of mind. In this case, a resolution passed by the board of
the appellant-company was not placed before the assessing officer
and it was held that there was no material to support the claim of the
appellant therein, and the assessing officer had accepted the entry in
the statement of the account filed by the appellant in the absence of
any supporting material and without making any inquiry.
31. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Gee Vee Enterprise v.
Additional Commissioner of Income Tax: (1975) 99 ITR 375, held
that the Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 20 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
ground that in the circumstances of the case the officer should have
made further inquiries before accepting the statements made by the
assessee in the return. The relevant portion of the decision is
reproduced hereunder:
―….These two decisions show that it is not necessary for the
Commissioner to make further inquiries before cancelling the
assessment order of the Income-tax Officer. The
Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the
ground that in the circumstances of the case the Income-
tax Officer should have made further inquiries before
accepting the statements made by the assessee in his
return.
The reason is obvious. The position and function of the
Income-tax Officer is very different from that of a civil court.
The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum
amount of evidence may be accepted by a civil court in the
absence of any rebuttal. The civil court is neutral. It simply
gives decision on the basis of the pleading and evidence
which comes before it. The Income-tax Officer is not only
an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain
passive in the face of a return which is apparently in
order but calls for further inquiry. It is his duty to
ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when
the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an
inquiry. The meaning to be given to the word “erroneous” in
section 263 emerges out of this context. It is because it is
incumbent on the Income-tax Officer to further investigate
the facts stated in the return when circumstances would make
such an inquiry prudent that the word “erroneous” in section
263 includes the failure to make such an inquiry. The order
becomes erroneous because such an inquiry has not been
made and not because there is anything wrong with the order
if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct.‖
(Emphasis added)
32. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Toyota Motor
Corporation: (2008) 306 ITR 49, the assessing officer had passed an
order dropping the penalty proceedings initiated in the assessee’s
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 21 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
case. The Commissioner had exercised powers under Section 263 of
the Act and concluded that the assessing officer had not verified
several issues and facts as mentioned in the order passed by him, nor
had he carried out necessary investigations to come to a conclusion
that penalty was not leviable. Consequently, he had found that the
order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
However, on appeal, the Tribunal had held that the penalty
proceedings were not dropped casually by the assessing officer but
after verification of full facts disclosed by the assessee in the reply.
The Coordinate Bench of this Court held that the order passed by the
assessing officer was cryptic and non-reasoned. The relevant
observations are extracted below:
―10. We are unable to appreciate this reasoning given by the
Tribunal simply because that the Assessing Officer himself
did not say any such thing in his order. There is no doubt that
the proceedings before the Assessing Officer are quasi-
judicial proceedings and a decision taken by the Assessing
Officer in this regard must be supported by reasons.
Otherwise every order such as the one passed by the
Assessing Officer, could result in a theoretical possibility that
it may be revised by the CIT under section 263 of the Act.
Such a situation is clearly impermissible.
11. It is also necessary for the parties to know the reasons that
have weighed with the Adjudicating Authority in coming to a
conclusion. The order passed by the Assessing Officer should
be a self-contained order giving the relevant facts and reasons
for coming to the conclusion based on those facts and law.
12. We find that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is
cryptic to say the least, and it cannot be sustained. The
Tribunal cannot substitute its own reasoning to justify the
order passed by the Assessing Officer when the Assessing
Officer himself did not give any reason in the order passed by
him.‖Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 22 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
33. The aforesaid decision was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Toyota Motor Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-
tax: (2008) 306 ITR 52.
34. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income
Tax v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.: (2011) 332 ITR 167 had highlighted the
necessity to bear in mind the distinction between ―lack of inquiry‖
and ―inadequate enquiry‖. We consider it apposite to refer to the
following passage from the said decision:
―17. …Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his
submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction
between “lack of inquiry” and “inadequate inquiry”. If
there was any inquiry, even inadequate that would not by
itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under
section 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different
opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of “lack of inquiry”
that such a course of action would be open……‖
(Emphasis added)
35. Therefore, it is clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the
Coordinate Benches of this Court had also dealt with the scope of
‗erroneous orders’ for the purpose of Section 263 of the Act, even
when Explanation 2 had not been inserted in the said provision, and
had held that an erroneous order would include an order which is
passed without conducting sufficient inquiries or without application
of mind.
Re: Question No. 1 framed by this Court
―Whether the ITAT has erred in law to hold that the
assessment order passed by the AO was not erroneous
and that the exercise of power under Section 263 of the
Act by the CIT was not justified even through the AO
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 23 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
passed the assessment order without making inquiries or
verification which should have been made in the facts
and circumstances of the present case?‖
36. To adjudicate this question of law, it will be crucial to
adjudicate, on the basis of law and judicial precedents, as to whether
the AO’s failure to verify the genuineness of the sundry creditors,
while framing the assessment order, rendered it erroneous and
prejudicial to the interests of Revenue.
37. The facts of the present case reveal a series of procedural
lapses and omissions on the part of both the assessee and the AO,
culminating in an assessment order which was held to be erroneous
and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue by the PCIT. It is to be
noted that the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny for AY 2014-
15, and notices were duly issued under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of
the Act, first such notice having been issued on 23.09.2015.
However, despite repeated opportunities, the assessee failed to attend
the proceedings or submit the requisite documents. Even when the
AO issued a penalty notice under Section 271 of the Act, the assessee
remained non-compliant, and provided no valid cause for its failure
to cooperate with the assessment proceedings. The pattern of non-
compliance persisted throughout the proceedings, with the assessee
submitting its return of income only on 29.12.2016, merely three
days before the assessment proceedings would have become time
barred. Even at this belated stage, the assessee’s submissions were
incomplete and inadequate. Notably, the list of sundry creditors
amounting to ₹51,44,53,415/- was furnished by the assessee on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 24 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
29.12.2016 i.e. three days prior to the expiry of limitation period, and
this list only contained the names of the sundry creditors and the
corresponding amount qua them. The list, however, did not contain
the crucial details such as PAN number, or addresses of the creditors,
or supporting documents to substantiate the transactions. Moreover,
the information provided was not in the format specifically requested
by the AO, which, in our view, made it further difficult for any
meaningful verification to be conducted.
38. However, despite these glaring deficiencies, the AO failed to
exercise the diligence expected under the Act. The record indicates
that the AO neither undertook any inquiries nor conducted
verification of the sundry creditors listed by the assessee, and he
merely accepted the submissions of the assessee at face value,
without raising any queries or seeking clarifications. In fact, the
assessment order dated 31.12.2016 is completely silent on the aspect
of sundry creditors. This failure on part of the AO is particularly
troubling in light of the findings of the DCIT, who later verified the
first entry of the list, of ₹4,65,86,911/-, pertaining to EGIS Infra and
found it to be bogus, on the ground of there being absence of a
corresponding debit or asset entry in the books of EGIS Infra, which
led the DCIT to opine that other entries in the list of sundry creditors
list might also be fictitious, and therefore, action under Section 263
of the Act was necessitated. It is also pertinent to note that the DCIT
had observed that similar discrepancies were identified in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 25 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
assessee’s accounts for the preceding AY, in respect of the same
sundry creditor i.e. EGIS Infra.
39. The PCIT, in the order under Section 263 of the Act, also
noted that though a list of sundry creditors was filed by the assessee,
confirmation of parties or copy of ledger account of the sundry
creditors was still not provided, and therefore, the genuineness and
creditworthiness of the sundry creditors could not be verified even
during the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act.
40. In the case at hand, it shall be apposite to take note of the
decision of Coordinate Bench in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-
II v. Shri Braham Dev Gupta: 2018 SCC Online Del 1996. The
order of the assessing officer in this case had been set aside under
Section 263 of the Act, but the learned ITAT had restored the order
of the assessing officer. The Coordinate Bench, while setting aside
the order of the learned ITAT had observed that the fact, that out of
80 debtors, the assessee therein had furnished particulars of only 22
and even PAN particulars of most of them were not provided, would
lead to a conclusion that the AO had not conducted inquiries
regarding the genuineness of the transactions. The relevant portion of
the decision is reproduced as under:
―14. In this Court’s opinion, such findings and reasoning are
clearly indefensible; they amount to putting a gloss over the
AO’s glaring omissions. Repeated decisions have
emphasized that the AO should – at least as regards what
appears from the record, and what are issues inquired
into, during scrutiny assessment, indicate the briefest of
reasons, accepting or rejecting any argument. In this case,
the mere fact that out of 80 debtors, particulars of 22 wereSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 26 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
furnished and that PAN particulars of most of them were
not provided (for AY, cannot lead to the conclusion that
the doubting of genuineness of those transactions was
unwarranted, under Section 263).
15. For AY 2012-13, the CIT, pertinently observed – with
regard to expenditure claimed towards purchases, as follows:
―It was informed to the assessee that a number of parties
have not responded to the notices. The assessee has
admitted that only 37 parties out of 114 have responded to
the notices. Other parties out of 114 have not even
responded to the notices. Therefore the genuineness of
these documents i.e. purchases could not be verified. At
least the matter needed further examination.‖
16. Again, the ITAT did not say how this observation was
unwarranted. On the other hand, the AO’s order made
originally is silent about this aspect altogether.‖
(Emphasis added)
41. The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate that the
genuineness of transactions between the assessee and its 70 sundry
creditors were neither examined nor verified by the AO, resulting in
the passing of an assessment order without due diligence. While the
AO’s inability to verify the creditors was partly due to time
constraints, it was also attributable to the assessee’s failure to furnish
complete details. This omission, however, does not absolve the AO
of his statutory obligation to conduct necessary inquiries and
verifications.
42. We also note that in the impugned order, the learned ITAT has
observed, in detail, as to what options were available before the AO
in the present case and as to why the AO would have exercised the
first option – that is to disallow 20% of the expenditure claimed by
the assessee – and not conduct verification of the sundry creditors. ASignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 27 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
bare perusal of the assessment order dated 31.12.2016 would reveal
that the AO assigned no reasons whatsoever for not conducting any
inquiry in respect of the sundry creditors. In our opinion, the learned
ITAT has substituted its own reasons and findings for the course
adopted by the AO, whereas the assessment order is completely silent
on the said aspect. In Toyota Motor Corporation v. Commissioner of
Income-tax (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the
order passed by the AO was cryptic, the Tribunal could not have
substituted its own reasoning to justify the order passed by the AO
when the AO himself did not give any reason in the order passed by
him. Similarly, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Braham Dev
Gupta (supra), held as under:
―19. In the present case too, the ITAT’s findings amount to
supplying reasons in respect of the AO’s order, on aspects,
which are not expressly reflected in the assessment order.
It is no doubt the duty of the CIT to record why revision is
warranted; however, the ITAT’s jurisdiction is not to re-
write the AO’s order and improve upon it, in a manner of
speaking. Clearly, the orders of the ITAT cannot be
sustained. They are set aside.‖
(Emphasis added)
43. In the present case, the AO had passed an order without
verification or enquiries; the DCIT had on verification of one of the
entries had found the first entry out of the 70 entries of sundry
creditors to be bogus and had therefore, sent the recommendation to
PCIT. Therefore, the AO’s order would naturally not have referred to
any bogus entry as the AO had not bothered to find out or verify as to
whether the entries were bogus or not. That is precisely the premiseSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 28 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
on which the DCIT had opined that the assessment order was
erroneous and had proposed action under Section 263 of the Act. In
such circumstances, for the learned ITAT to hold that the AO’s order
did not find mention of bogus entry, was clearly without application
of mind, since that was exactly the ground that he had not verified the
entries which laid the edifice of passing of order under Section 263 of
the Act. Had the AO conducted enquiries or verified the sundry
creditors, there may not have been an occasion to exercise
jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act.
44. Therefore, the observations of the learned ITAT in paragraph 8
of the impugned order, that the AO could not find one entry of
₹4,65,86,911/- as bogus and that there was no material before PCIT
to observe so, are unmerited, since the finding regarding the bogus
entry was to be found in the order of DCIT, which was the
foundation of referring the matter to PCIT for excercising jurisdiction
under Section 263 of the Act and on the basis of which show cause
notice was issued by the PCIT.
45. In these circumstances, the PCIT, in our view, rightly held that
the assessment order was erroneous since the same was passed
without making any inquiries qua, and verification of, the
transactions pertaining to the sundry creditors. The said observations
of the PCIT were premised on the fact that when only one entry, out
of the 70 entries in the list of sundry creditors had been checked and
verified from the records available with the DCIT, the same was
found to be bogus. Therefore, by setting aside the assessment order,Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 29 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
the PCIT acted within the scope of its revisional jurisdiction,
ensuring that the deficiencies in the assessment process are rectified
in accordance with the law.
46. The Question No. 1 is, thus, answered in favour of the
Revenue and against the assessee.
Re: Question No. 2 framed by this Court
―Whether the ITAT has erred in law to hold that exercise
of power under Section 263 of the Act cannot be
extended to direct the AO to verify the genuineness of
the transactions if in the opinion of the CIT the non-
verification of the genuineness of the transaction is found
to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the
revenue?‖
47. The issue to be addressed is whether the PCIT could direct the
AO, under Section 263 of the Act, to examine the genuineness of the
transactions amounting to ₹51,44,53,415/- on account of sundry
creditors and conduct proper enquiries and investigation in this
regard.
48. The learned counsel for the Revenue contended that the
learned ITAT committed an error by holding that while exercising
power under Section 263 of the Act, the PCIT cannot direct the AO
to verify the genuineness of the transactions, if in the opinion of
PCIT, the non-verification of such transactions is found to be
erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. However,
the learned counsel for the assessee argued that the PCIT could not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 30 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
have directed the AO to verify the genuineness of the transactions
and thereby extend the time of verification and limitation, which had
already expired on 31.12.2016 i.e. when the assessment order was
passed by the AO.
49. We note that the learned ITAT in the impugned order
expressed that mere scarcity of time with the AO to make adequate
inquiries cannot be rectified by invoking powers under Section 263
of the Act and then granting further time to the AO to make enquiries
and decide the issue afresh. It was further held that such a course
would amount to extension of time limit provided under Section 153
of the Act to complete the assessment. The learned ITAT also
observed that mandate of law was to rectify an order if it is found to
be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, but the PCIT
had adopted an alternative route, devised by the Revenue, to give
further time to the AO to complete the assessment proceedings by
making further enquiries.
50. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid observations of the
learned ITAT.
51. Firstly, in the present case, it was the assessee who had
delayed the proceedings before the AO and had submitted the list of
sundry creditors on 29.12.2016, though the notice in this case was
first issued under Section 143(2) of the Act on 23.09.2015, knowing
fully well that the period of limitation for completing the assessment
proceedings would expire on 31.12.2016. The assessee also would be
in the knowledge that the list of sundry creditors ran into 70 entities,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 31 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
and he was furnishing it without their PAN particulars, addresses and
other particulars, which would definitely defeat the purpose of
tendering such information only for the sake of completing the
formalities before the AO to shirk his responsibility since the AO will
not be able to verify the transactions within such a short period with
incomplete details. Be that as it may, since the assessment order was
passed within the period of limitation, and it is only after the
challenge to the order, where it was found to be erroneous and
prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, that the same was restored
to the file of AO for framing assessment afresh.
52. Insofar as the issue of directing the AO to conduct verification
of the genuineness of the transactions and proper enquiry is
concerned, we are of the opinion that the language of Section 263 of
the Act is clear and unambiguous, and an order under Section 263 of
the Act can be passed by PCIT, if the the same is found (i) erroneous,
and (ii) prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, by the PCIT. As
already observed in preceding discussion, an order passed without
conducting necessary inquiries and verification of the records, can be
deemed erroneous. Section 263(1) of the Act also provides that in
such circumstances, the PCIT can pass such order as the
circumstances of the case may justify, including the following orders:
I. an order enhancing the assessment;
II. an order modifying the assessment;
III. an order cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh
assessment.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 32 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
53. It is also not disputed that under the Act, it is the duty of the
AO, and not the PCIT, to verify the genuineness of the transactions
and conduct inquiries which are necessary in the given facts and
circumstances. Therefore, in case, the arguments of the assessee or
the findings of the learned ITAT are accepted, it would lead to a
conclusion that in case an AO does not verify the genuineness of the
transactions or does not conduct proper enquiry and passes an
erroneous order which is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue,
the assessee will go scot free and the PCIT will have no power to set
aside the assessment order and direct the AO to conduct fresh
assessment after conducting proper inquiries. In fact, when
Explanation 2(a) of Section 263 of the Act itself clarifies that an
assessment order passed without conducting enquiries would be
erroneous, there is no reason as to why the direction of PCIT to AO,
to pass afresh order after conducting proper enquiries, would be
without jurisdiction and outside the scope of Section 263 of the Act.
54. In our opinion, a statute is to be construed and interpreted in a
manner which would further its intent, and not defeat the same. The
only conclusion which can be driven from the language and intent of
the provision of Section 263 of the Act is that the PCIT, in cases such
as the present one, by virtue of exercising its powers under the said
provision, is empowered to direct the AO to frame the assessment
afresh after conducting enquiries into such transactions, in interest of
the Revenue.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 33 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
55. As far as the question of extending time limit for completion of
assessment stipulated under Section 153 of the Act is concerned, we
note that Section 153(6) inter alia provides as follows:
“153. Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment
and recomputation.
***
(6) Nothing contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall
apply to the following classes of assessments,
reassessments and recomputation which may, subject to the
provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5), be completed–
(i) where the assessment, reassessment or
recomputation is made on the assessee or any person in
consequence of or to give effect to any finding or
direction contained in an order under section 250,
section 254, section 260, section 262, section 263, or
section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding
otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this
Act, on or before the expiry of twelve months from the
end of the month in which such order is received or
passed by the Principal Commissioner or
Commissioner, as the case may be; or…‖
(Emphasis added)
56. Clearly, the aforesaid provision mandates that the time limit
stipulated in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 153 of the Act do not
apply to any assessment, reassessment or recomputation which is
made, inter alia, to give effect to any finding or direction contained
in an order passed under Section 263 of the Act – as in the present
case.
57. The Question No. 2 is, thus, answered in favour of the
Revenue and against the assessee.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 34 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
58. In view thereof, the appeal is allowed in favour of the
Revenue. The impugned order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the
learned ITAT is set aside.
59. The appeal is disposed of.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
MAY 13, 2025/ns
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ITA 424/2022 Page 35 of 35
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:22.05.2025
18:12:31
