Bombay High Court Dismisses Assessee's Appeal in Income Tax Revision Case for Lack of Inquiry by Assessing Officer. Revision under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961, sustained as Assessing Officer failed to examine revenue reconciliation and reimbursement of expenses, making assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant-assessee, Mirum Digital Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in digital marketing and buys media space from online platforms like LinkedIn, Google, etc., on behalf of clients. It recovers advertisement costs from clients and charges a campaign management fee of 4% to 7%. For A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee filed its return of income, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Mumbai, invoked revision jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, holding that the AO did not examine the issue of revenue reconciliation and reimbursement of expenses. The PCIT set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment order after proper inquiry. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which dismissed the appeal, upholding the PCIT's order. The assessee then filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Act before the Bombay High Court. The High Court framed four questions of law, including whether the ITAT was justified in upholding the revision order, whether the AO had examined the issues, and whether the revision order was sustainable despite the assessee's non-appearance before the PCIT. The High Court noted that the AO had not made any inquiry regarding revenue reconciliation and reimbursement of expenses, and the assessment order was passed without proper examination. The court held that the PCIT correctly exercised revision jurisdiction as the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The court also held that the non-appearance of the assessee before the PCIT did not vitiate the proceedings. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the ITAT's order.

Headnote

A) Income Tax - Revision under Section 263 - Lack of Inquiry - The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoked revision jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to examine the issue of revenue reconciliation and reimbursement of expenses during the assessment proceedings. The assessee did not appear before the PCIT despite notice. The PCIT set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment order after proper inquiry. The ITAT upheld the revision order. The High Court held that the AO did not make any inquiry on the said issues, and therefore, the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The revision order was sustainable. (Paras 1-27)

B) Income Tax - Revision under Section 263 - Non-appearance of Assessee - The assessee did not appear before the PCIT during the revision proceedings. The PCIT relied on the assessment records. The High Court held that the non-appearance of the assessee does not vitiate the revision proceedings, as the PCIT can rely on the records available. The revision order was not arbitrary or perverse. (Paras 1-27)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, revising the assessment order for A.Y. 2017-18 on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not examine the issue of revenue reconciliation and reimbursement of expenses.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the ITAT was justified in upholding the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that the Assessing Officer did not examine the issue of revenue reconciliation and reimbursement of expenses, and therefore, the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The revision order was sustainable.

Law Points

  • Revision under Section 263 of Income Tax Act
  • 1961
  • Lack of inquiry by Assessing Officer
  • Sustainability of revision order
  • Non-appearance of assessee before PCIT
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (06) 89

Income Tax Appeal No. 286 of 2024

2026-06-19

G. S. Kulkarni, Aarti Sathe

Nishant Thakkar, Hiten Thakkar, Jasmin Amalsadvala (for Appellant), Akhileshwar Sharma (for Respondent)

Mirum Digital Pvt. Ltd.

Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-6, Mumbai

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Income Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upholding the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act.

Remedy Sought

The appellant-assessee sought to set aside the order of the ITAT and the revision order of the PCIT, and to restore the original assessment order.

Filing Reason

The appellant-assessee challenged the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Act, which set aside the assessment order on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not examine the issue of revenue reconciliation and reimbursement of expenses.

Previous Decisions

The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act. The PCIT invoked revision under Section 263 and set aside the assessment order. The ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the PCIT's order.

Issues

Whether the ITAT was justified in upholding the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Act revising the assessment order for A.Y. 2017-18? Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the issue of revenue reconciliation and reimbursement of expenses was not examined by the Assessing Officer at all during the assessment proceedings? Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the order under Section 263 is sustainable because the assessee did not turn up for the hearing and the PCIT had to rely on the assessment records? Whether the order passed by the ITAT is arbitrary, perverse, and bad in law?

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant-assessee argued that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue of revenue reconciliation and reimbursement of expenses during the assessment proceedings, and therefore, the PCIT erred in invoking revision jurisdiction. The respondent-revenue argued that the Assessing Officer did not make any inquiry on the said issues, and the assessment order was passed without proper examination, making it erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order can be revised under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the Assessing Officer fails to make proper inquiry on issues that are relevant for assessment, making the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The non-appearance of the assessee before the PCIT does not vitiate the revision proceedings.

Judgment Excerpts

This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 2nd January 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing the Appellant-Assessee’s Appeal, which was filed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-6, thereby holding that the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Act was sustainable. The business practice of the Appellant-Assessee as stated is to buy media space online from LinkedIn, Google, Times Internet and other online media channels on behalf of its clients...

Procedural History

The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18, which was processed under Section 143(1). The case was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under Section 143(3). The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax invoked revision under Section 263, setting aside the assessment order. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal. The assessee then filed an appeal under Section 260A before the Bombay High Court, which dismissed the appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Income Tax Act, 1961: 260A, 263, 143(1), 143(3)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Revision in Suit for Possession Under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act — Plaintiff Failed to Prove Prior Possession Within Six Months. The court held that the plaintiff did not establish possession within the statutory peri...
Related Judgement
High Court Arbitration Clause Upheld – Bombay High Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator Despite Procedural Objections