2010 (3) TMI 705 - HC - Income Tax

Revision two views were possible and according to the hon ble Supreme Court - Assessing Officer adopted only one view Revision not possible - appeals dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 263 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Computation of "book profits" under section 115JB of the Act.
3. Validity of invoking section 263 by the Commissioner.
4. Consideration of subsequent changes in law for invoking section 263.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the interpretation of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, focusing on whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that invoking section 263 was not justified despite an erroneous order by the Assessing Officer prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner could not invoke section 263 merely due to a different view from the Assessing Officer, emphasizing the need for the order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest simultaneously.

2. The case also delved into the computation of "book profits" under section 115JB of the Act, specifically concerning the exclusion of profits of the export business. The Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to recomputed the "book profits" by reducing only eligible profits of the business as per section 80HHC(1B). The Tribunal referenced previous judgments to support the exclusion of profits eligible for deduction under section 80HHC, ultimately siding with the Assessing Officer's view in framing the assessment under section 143(3).

3. The judgment analyzed the validity of invoking section 263 by the Commissioner, emphasizing the need for the order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest simultaneously, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT. The Tribunal held that where the Assessing Officer adopts a permissible course of action, the Commissioner cannot invoke section 263 based solely on a different preference.

4. Lastly, the judgment discussed the consideration of subsequent changes in law for invoking section 263, citing the Supreme Court's clarification in CIT v. Max India Ltd. The court highlighted that subsequent changes in law could not form the basis for exercising power under section 263, emphasizing the need to consider the legal position at the time of the Assessing Officer's order. The judgment concluded that the order of the Commissioner could not be justified by any subsequent pronouncement of law, as the law applicable at the time of the Assessing Officer's order determined the erroneous nature of the order.