2010 (5) TMI 547 - AT - Income Tax

Revision - Scrutiny - Disallowance - The assessee is an investment company and during the relevant year it had income mainly from house property income from business and capital gains - it is observed that the allowability of the said expenditure was disputed/doubted by the ld. CIT on the basis that there was no business activity of the assessee company in foreign countries - There was thus no error in the assessment order passed by the A.O. on this issue as alleged by the ld. CIT warranting any revision u/s 263 - The ld. D.R. has made an attempt to support the impugned order of the ld. CIT passed u/s 263 on the new ground which was not there given by ld. CIT in the notice issued u/s 263 to the assessee - In the case of CIT vs. L.F.D. Silva 192 ITR 547 - Accordingly held that there was no error in the assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) as alleged by the ld. CIT in the notice issued u/s 263 and this being so the ld. CIT was not justified in revising the said assessment - In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Erroneous and prejudicial assessment order under Section 263.
2. Deduction of Rs. 20,21,509/- for reduction in value of investments.
3. Deduction of Rs. 3,15,290/- for foreign travel expenses.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Erroneous and prejudicial assessment order under Section 263:

The appeal concerns the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 263, which deemed the original assessment by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The CIT identified two primary errors: the deduction claimed for the reduction in the value of investments and the foreign travel expenses.

2. Deduction of Rs. 20,21,509/- for reduction in value of investments:

The CIT noted that the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 20,21,509/- for the reduction in the value of investments, which was deemed irregular. However, the assessee clarified that this amount had already been added back in the computation of total income. The Tribunal found this explanation factually correct and noted that the CIT also acknowledged this during the proceedings. Therefore, there was no error in the A.O.'s assessment regarding this deduction, and no further adjustment was necessary.

3. Deduction of Rs. 3,15,290/- for foreign travel expenses:

The CIT questioned the necessity of the foreign travel expenses incurred by the Director of the assessee company, arguing that there were no business activities in foreign countries. The assessee argued that the travel was for business purposes, including meetings with investment banks and fund houses in London. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that the absence of business activities in foreign countries does not automatically disqualify the deduction of foreign travel expenses. The Tribunal found that the CIT's basis for disputing the deduction was incorrect and that the A.O. had allowed the deduction after verifying the relevant details.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that there were no errors in the A.O.'s assessment order that warranted revision under Section 263. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the original assessment order passed by the A.O. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.