2015 (5) TMI 1111 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Claim u/s 80IB(10) - Held that - We find that the ld. Assessing Officer has made an elaborate discussion of facts by placing reliance upon various decisions of higher authorities. We note that the ld. Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible view, more specifically, when the Tribunal upheld the decision of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) holding the assessee as a joint developer along with M/s Dhruv Construction. No appeal was filed by the Department against the decision of the Tribunal. Even, no contrary decision has been mentioned more specifically when the assessment was framed, the decision from a higher forum was available before the Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer has also made discussion about other disallowances in the assessment order along with other details and computation of total income as is evident from page-6 of the assessment order. Assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, therefore, we allow the appeal of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, invoking revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The crux of the argument presented by the assessee's counsel was that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue's interest as all necessary details were provided and examined by the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, the Revenue defended the revisional jurisdiction by highlighting the absence of discussion on the accounting method employed by the assessee. The Tribunal analyzed the facts, submissions, and material available on record to reach a decision.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had declared income in its return, which was subsequently scrutinized under CASS. Detailed questionnaires were served, and the assessee provided the required information during the assessment proceedings. The assessment order elaborated on the projects undertaken by the assessee, including Agarwal Trinity Tower, Agarwal Hill View, and Agarwal Peace Heaven. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had examined the facts meticulously, including discussions on deductions claimed under section 80IB(10) and joint development agreements. The Tribunal also highlighted that the Assessing Officer had considered various decisions of higher authorities and taken a plausible view, supported by the absence of appeals against previous decisions.

Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized that the assessment was conducted after a detailed examination by the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue's interest, citing relevant case laws to support its decision. It dismissed the contention that the assessment lacked due enquiry or discussion on the accounting method, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer had conducted a thorough examination before passing the assessment order. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents to affirm its conclusion that the assessment order was valid and in line with the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, overturning the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax. The judgment was pronounced in open court with representatives from both sides present.