9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (5) TMI 250 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Once it has been provided in statute by the Parliament that the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax shall approve the option for Tonnage Tax Scheme after satisfying himself about the eligibility of the company for the said scheme and in pursuance to which the competent authority has granted the approval then it cannot be held that such approval was granted by making only a preliminary enquiry without satisfying as was the competent authority duty bound to do, without any relevant material - Held that CIT(A) has brought no material on record after going through the agreement dated 25-9-2001 referred in show cause notice that the assessee company has chartered out on bare boat charter cum demise terms or on bare boat charter terms for a period exceeding 3 years to any other person - it is admitted position that the issue under consideration is a debatable issue or an issue in respect of which more than one view is possible - Appeal is allowed
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act. 2. Eligibility for Tonnage Tax Scheme under Sections 115VC and 115VD. 3. Interpretation of statutory provisions and their application. 4. Examination of the assessment order's validity and the powers of the Commissioner of Income-tax. Detailed Analysis: I. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act: - The appellant argued that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) dated 25-1-2010 is illegal, erroneous, and liable to be quashed because the twin conditions 'erroneous' and 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' prescribed under section 263 were not satisfied. - The CIT invoked jurisdiction under section 263, contending that the assessment order dated 7-12-2007 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The CIT argued that the approval under section 115VP was preliminary and subject to compliance with Chapter XIIG conditions. - The Tribunal concluded that the CIT's invocation of jurisdiction under section 263 was not justified since the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax had already approved the tonnage tax scheme, and the CIT did not set aside this approval. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT cannot use section 263 for a roving or fishing enquiry without material evidence. II. Eligibility for Tonnage Tax Scheme under Sections 115VC and 115VD: - The CIT concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the Tonnage Tax Scheme under section 115VC because the appellant owned only 20% of the ship "MV Gem of Ennore" and not the entire ship. - The appellant argued that the co-ownership of the ship does not disqualify it from the Tonnage Tax Scheme. Section 115VH recognizes co-ownership, and the scheme is available even to an entity owning a ship jointly with others. - The Tribunal found that section 115VC does not require full ownership of a qualifying ship and that the appellant's co-ownership does not disqualify it from the scheme. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant's application for the tonnage tax scheme was approved by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, and this approval was still in force. III. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions and Their Application: - The CIT argued that the transport of coal between two ports in India does not qualify under section 115VD as it is an activity normally provided on land. - The appellant contended that the transport of coal by sea is not an activity normally provided on land and that the CIT's interpretation was incorrect. - The Tribunal held that the CIT's interpretation was debatable and that section 263 cannot be invoked for issues where more than one view is possible. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Max India, which states that section 263 is not envisaged for debatable issues. IV. Examination of the Assessment Order's Validity and the Powers of the Commissioner of Income-tax: - The CIT argued that the assessment order dated 7-12-2007 did not consider whether part ownership of a ship qualifies under section 115VC and whether the income derived from part ownership qualifies as income from operating a qualifying ship under section 115VA. - The appellant argued that the assessment order was based on the approval of the tonnage tax scheme and that the CIT's order under section 263 did not establish any prejudice caused to the Revenue. - The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT's order was based on a debatable issue, and the assessment order was in line with the statutory provisions and the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the order passed under section 263 by the Commissioner of Income-tax and allowed the appeal of the assessee, concluding that the assessment order dated 7-12-2007 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT cannot invoke section 263 for debatable issues or for making a roving enquiry without material evidence.
|
