9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 1120 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Computation of deduction under Section 80-IB - Held that - May be it is true that every claim which is allowed to an assessee need not be elaborately dealt with in an assessment order. However the chain of events should show that there was application of mind atleast on the veracity of a claim made by the assessee. This is not seen here. It might be true that eligible undertaking need not maintain separate account for claiming deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act but these were aspects which were never verified by the Assessing Officer at the time of completing the assessment. Therefore of the opinion that the finding of DIT (International Taxation) that the assessment was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of Revenue cannot be faulted. We do not find any reason to interfere in such an order of DIT (International Taxation). Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of invoking Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Director of Income-Tax (International Taxation) (DIT). 2. Eligibility and computation of deduction claimed under Section 80-IB(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Adequacy of the assessment proceedings conducted by the Assessing Officer (A.O.). 4. Compliance with principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legitimacy of invoking Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the DIT: The DIT issued a notice under Section 263, proposing to revise the assessment order, considering it erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The DIT argued that the A.O. had not computed the deduction under Section 80-IB(9) in accordance with Section 80-IB(13) read with Section 80-IA(5). The Tribunal upheld the DIT's invocation of Section 263, noting that the A.O. failed to examine the claim in-depth, making the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 2. Eligibility and computation of deduction claimed under Section 80-IB(9): The assessee claimed deductions for two units, Satellite Gas Field and Lakshmi Gas Field. The DIT contended that the Satellite Gas Field was not a separate undertaking as required under Section 80-IB(5) and that the Lakshmi Gas Field was part of the CBOS 2 block, not a distinct undertaking. The Tribunal found that the A.O. had not verified the commencement of commercial production or whether these units were separate undertakings. The Tribunal agreed with the DIT that the A.O. had not adequately examined the eligibility and computation of the deduction, making the assessment erroneous. 3. Adequacy of the assessment proceedings conducted by the A.O.: The Tribunal noted that the A.O. allowed the deduction under Section 80-IB(9) without proper examination or verification of the details provided by the assessee. The A.O. did not scrutinize the allocation of expenses or the commencement of commercial production. The Tribunal concluded that there was a lack of application of mind by the A.O., rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 4. Compliance with principles of natural justice and procedural fairness: The assessee argued that the DIT's order was at variance with the show cause notice and that it was not given an opportunity to rebut the DIT's views. The Tribunal found that the substance of the notice and the final order were consistent and that the assessee had an opportunity to present its case. The Tribunal held that there was no violation of natural justice, as the DIT's final direction was to re-examine the allowability of the deduction and recompute it as per law. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the DIT's order under Section 263. The Tribunal held that the A.O.'s failure to adequately examine the deduction claim under Section 80-IB(9) justified the DIT's invocation of Section 263. The assessment order was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue due to the A.O.'s lack of proper scrutiny and application of mind.
|
