2013 (12) TMI 1557 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Held that - The assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Therefore, the CIT s impugned order u/s 263 deserves to be quashed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the invocation of Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner.
2. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) conducted proper inquiries regarding the deduction under Section 80IAB.
3. Whether the sale of bare shell buildings qualifies as an authorized operation under the SEZ Act and is eligible for deduction under Section 80IAB.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Invocation of Section 263:

The primary grievance of the assessee revolves around the invocation of Section 263 by the Commissioner, who deemed the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Commissioner issued a show-cause notice stating that the AO allowed a deduction under Section 80IAB without proper inquiry, particularly concerning the sale of bare shell buildings, which he argued did not qualify as an authorized operation under the SEZ Act.

2. Inquiry Conducted by the AO:

The AO had issued a detailed questionnaire under Section 142(1) and received responses from the assessee, including various documents like the approval letter for SEZ development, the MOU with the co-developer, and the definitive co-developer agreement. The AO discussed the deduction under Section 80IAB in the assessment order, revising the deduction amount after considering the details provided. The ITAT observed that the AO had indeed conducted inquiries and applied his mind before allowing the deduction, thus fulfilling his role as both investigator and adjudicator.

3. Sale of Bare Shell Buildings as Authorized Operation:

The assessee argued that the sale of bare shell buildings to the co-developer was an authorized operation under the SEZ Act, supported by approvals and clarifications from the Ministry of Commerce & Industries. The SEZ Act allows co-developers to be treated at par with developers, and the transfer of bare shell buildings was recognized as an authorized activity by the Board of Approval (BOA). The ITAT noted that the BOA's approval and subsequent clarifications confirmed that such transfers were authorized operations, making the income derived from these transactions eligible for deduction under Section 80IAB.

Conclusion:

The ITAT concluded that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and that the assessment order was not erroneous. The Commissioner's invocation of Section 263 was based on a misinterpretation of the SEZ Act and the nature of the transactions. The ITAT quashed the Commissioner's order, allowing the assessee's appeal and upholding the deduction under Section 80IAB. The decision emphasized that the AO had taken one of the possible views, and merely because the Commissioner had a different interpretation did not render the assessment order erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.