9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of share of loss in AoP in the hands of its members. 2. Jurisdiction and validity of exercise of revisionary power u/s 263 of the Act by the CIT. Summary: Issue 1: Allowability of Share of Loss in AoP in the Hands of its Members The assessee, a member of Birla Textile Mills (an AoP), claimed its share of losses from the AoP in its income tax return for the assessment year 1998-99. The Assessing Officer allowed this claim u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the CIT, exercising revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263, held that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The CIT contended that the losses of the AoP could not be allowed in the hands of its members and were only allowable for set-off in the hands of the AoP, a separate assessable entity. The CIT relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Smt. Lalita M. Bhat [1998] 234 ITR 3191. The assessee argued that u/s 67A, the share of losses of a member in an AoP is allowable in the hands of the members u/s 86 of the Act. The assessee cited various provisions and judicial precedents to support this claim, including Mahindra Holdings & Finance Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 23 SOT 215 (Mum.) (TM) and Metro Exports (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2004] 3 SOT 566 (Mum.). However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT's order, stating that the provisions of section 86 read with section 167B clearly indicate that the share of a member in the income or loss of an AoP is not to be included in the total income of the member if the AoP is chargeable to tax at a higher rate. Issue 2: Jurisdiction and Validity of Exercise of Revisionary Power u/s 263 of the Act by the CIT The assessee contended that the CIT erred in exercising revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, arguing that the twin conditions for invoking section 263'i.e., the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue'were not satisfied. The assessee cited the decisions in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 831 (SC) and CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2004] 268 ITR 128 (Punj. & Har.) [affirmed in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC)]. The Tribunal, however, found that the Assessing Officer did not apply the correct law, specifically the provisions of section 86 read with section 167B, and thus the order was erroneous. The Tribunal held that the CIT was justified in revising the erroneous order by withdrawing the set-off of the share of loss in the AoP against other income. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's contention that a new plea was raised by the D.R., clarifying that the D.R. merely highlighted the provisions of section 167B, which was not a new ground but a facet of the arguments. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order, confirming that the share of loss in the AoP is not allowable in the hands of its members and that the CIT was justified in exercising revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee's appeal was dismissed.
|
