9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Merits of the assessment order set aside by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act: The appellant challenged the CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263, arguing that the conditions prescribed by the section were not satisfied. The CIT had held that the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, setting aside the entire assessment order. Facts of the Case: The assessee company, engaged in manufacturing and selling abrasives, claimed a deduction under Section 80-IA for its Bond Plant. The AO accepted the assessee's method of calculating the market value of bonds, which involved using the export price for bonds developed by the company and the Norton Company price for bonds not sold to outsiders but used for captive consumption. The CIT found this method erroneous, noting that the assessee had not included certain expenses in its computation and that the price used was exaggerated. Arguments by the Assessee: The assessee contended that the method had been consistently accepted by the department for eight years under Section 143(3) assessments. They argued that when two views are possible, the AO's acceptance of one view cannot be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. They cited several case laws to support this proposition, including: - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) - CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2004] 268 ITR 128 (P&H) - CIT v. Mehsana Dist. Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2003] 263 ITR 645 (Guj.) - CIT v. Arvind Jewellers [2003] 259 ITR 5023 (Guj.) - IPCA Laboratories Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [IT Appeal No. 137 (Mum.) of 2000] (ITAT - Mum.) - Siemens Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 4393 (Bom.) of 1992] (ITAT - Mum.) Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal acknowledged that the method adopted by the assessee had been accepted by the department for the past eight years. It recognized that there could be more than one method to determine the market value for calculating the deduction under Section 80-IA. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the AO's acceptance of one possible method, consistently followed by the assessee, could not be considered erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal cited relevant case laws supporting this view, including Simon Carves Ltd. [1976] 105 ITR 212 (SC) and decisions of the ITAT, Mumbai in IPCA Laboratories Ltd. and Siemens Ltd. Conclusion on Jurisdiction: The Tribunal concluded that the AO's order, which accepted a consistently followed method, could not be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the CIT's order on jurisdiction grounds. 2. Merits of the Assessment Order: Since the Tribunal quashed the CIT's order on jurisdiction grounds, it did not find it necessary to address the merits of the case. The assessee's grounds on the merits were not dealt with. Result: The assessee's appeal was allowed on the jurisdiction issue, and the CIT's order was quashed. The merits of the case were not addressed.
|
