2015 (5) TMI 1032 - AT - Income Tax

MAT computation - revision u/s 263 - According to Ld CIT, the deduction prescribed in the above said provision shall be available only for the assessment years falling between the years mentioned in clause (vii), i.e., the assessment year in which the company has become a Sick Industrial Company and the year in which the net worth of such company becomes equal to or exceeds the accumulated losses - according to Ld A.R, the provisions of sec. 115JB of the Company is intended to collect income tax from the so called Zero tax companies - Held that - On a careful perusal of the contentions of the assessee as well as the Ld D.R, we are of the view that both the views are possible views, i.e., the issue under consideration is debatable issue, where two views are possible. Since the assessing officer has passed the assessment order by accepting the view of the assessee, it has to be held that the assessing officer has adopted one of the plausible views. In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. (2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court ), the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. In our opinion, the view taken by the assessing officer cannot be considered to be unsustainable in law. Hence, we are of the view that the impugned revision order could not be sustained and accordingly we set aside the same. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to revision order passed by Ld CIT under section 263 of the Act regarding deduction under section 115JB for assessment year 2004-05.

Analysis:
The assessee appealed against the revision order by Ld CIT challenging the validity of the deduction under clause (vii) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act. The assessing officer had initially determined the total income at NIL under normal provisions and Book profit at NIL under section 115JB. The deduction under clause (vii) was allowed based on the profit of the Sick Industrial Company for the relevant assessment years. The Ld CIT initiated revision proceedings, contending that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as the company was no longer a Sick Industrial Company. The Ld CIT set aside the assessment order, directing a fresh assessment. The main argument was the assessing officer's application of mind and adoption of a plausible view, which the Ld CIT disputed.

The Tribunal referred to legal precedents to define the scope of section 263, emphasizing that the Commissioner can revise an order if it is "erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue." The Tribunal analyzed the interpretation of clause (vii) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB, focusing on the eligibility for deduction of profits earned during specific periods. The assessee argued that the deduction should apply to profits earned within the mentioned periods without any cap, aligning with the legislative intent to aid the revival of Sick Industrial Companies. In contrast, the Ld CIT believed the deduction was limited to profits earned in specific years as per clause (vii).

The Tribunal concluded that both views were plausible, making the issue debatable. As the assessing officer had accepted the assessee's view, it was held that the revision order lacked sustainability. The Tribunal dismissed the revision order, emphasizing that the assessing officer's decision was not unsustainable in law. The Tribunal did not delve into the alternative contentions raised by the assessee, as the main issue was resolved in favor of the assessee, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision favored the assessee, highlighting the importance of a plausible view taken by the assessing officer and the debatable nature of the issue regarding the deduction under section 115JB. The Tribunal's analysis of legal provisions and legislative intent supported the assessee's claim for deduction, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeal.